EXT4 Has A Very Nice Performance Optimization For Linux 6.11
www.phoronix.com

Ted Ts’o sent out the EXT4 updates today for Linux 6.11. He explained in that pull request:

“Many cleanups and bug fixes in ext4, especially for the fast commit feature. Also some performance improvements; in particular, improving IOPS and throughput on fast devices running Async Direct I/O by up to 20% by optimizing jbd2_transaction_committed().”

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        32·
        4 months ago

        Extremely slow package manager (the most important one), confusing installer, fast deprecation of important technologies and testing of new technologies on its users (making major upgrades risky) is what I can remember now.

        • bsergay@discuss.online
          2·
          4 months ago

          Thank you for the reply!

          Extremely slow package manager (the most important one)

          Fair. Though, IIRC, it’s in the same order of magnitude as apt and zypper. But yeah; apk, pacman and xbps are definitely faster by a wide margin. Hopefully, dnf5 will be able to close the gap significantly.

          confusing installer

          I often hear this. But I’m not sure if I understand. Is it because Anaconda does not walk you (explicitly) through all parts of the installation (at least by default)? And, instead, chooses to give the user an overview (at some point) in which the user is expected to go over each one of them by themselves.

          fast deprecation of important technologies and testing of new technologies on its users (making major upgrades risky)

          Fair. I think this is the most legitimate concern. Thankfully, over the last two years, I have yet to bang my head against a brick wall for reasons related to this. But I understand why others are more reluctant based on Fedora’s (less recent) track record.

          • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
            22·
            4 months ago

            apt

            Apt can be improved with frontends and it doesn’t take 10 minutes to sync the repos.

            zypper

            Idk much about it but I heard it’s slow too.

            But I’m not sure if I understand. Is it because Anaconda does not walk you (explicitly) through all parts of the installation (at least by default)?

            Yes.

            And, instead, chooses to give the user an overview (at some point) in which the user is expected to go over each one of them by themselves.

            Yea even archinstall might be better than this design lol.

            less recent

            X11. Though I don’t remember if they decided to drop it before explicit sync was introduced for NVidia drivers or after.

            • bsergay@discuss.online
              2·
              4 months ago

              Apt can be improved with frontends

              nala is indeed pretty cool.

              Thank you for clarifying/confirming the parts related to how Fedora’s installation is confusing.

              X11. Though I don’t remember if they decided to drop it before explicit sync was introduced for NVidia drivers or after.

              Totally forgot about this one. Blame AMD 😛. Thank you for correcting me!

        • bsergay@discuss.online
          0·
          4 months ago

          Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

          Fedora’s tendency to default to (potentially) premature software, can definitely be a legit reason to prefer other distros instead.

          I’m a “(sweet) summer child” in that I’ve only been using Fedora for over two years now. Therefore, I haven’t experienced the commonly cited ‘shifts’ that have caused many issues to other users. Regardless, I do (somewhat) understand.

          Regarding wget2, I didn’t even know that was a thing. Thank you for mentioning it! I have yet to understand why or how Fedora unanimously agreed to push that change.

          To this day I notice that there is some skepticism with Btrfs, and I think it is because fedora also pushed it early.

          This, however, I can’t agree with. And perhaps you’re conflating matters. Btrfs was not ready when it was first supported. However, Fedora was not an early adopter. They only defaulted to it in 2020. By contrast, AFAIK openSUSE was the first to default it in 2014. Heck, the next year it was defaulted by SLE as well. By the time Fedora did the same, the severe issues and instabilities were already ironed out. So, I’d attribute the scepticism towards Btrfs as the community’s PTSD after many community members lost valuable data early in Btrfs’ lifetime.