"I've finally got some numbers to go along with the Btrfs variable blocksize feature. The basic idea is to create a read/write interface to map a range of bytes on the address space, and use it in Btrfs for all metadata operations (file operations have always been extent based)," explained Chris Mason in a recent posting to the Linux Filesystem Development mailing list. He linked to some benchmark results and summarized, "the first round of benchmarking shows that larger block sizes do consume more CPU, especially in metadata intensive workloads, but overall read speeds are much better." Chris then noted, "Dave reported that XFS saw much higher write throughput with large blocksizes, but so far I'm seeing the most benefits during reads." David Chinner replied, "the basic conclusion is that different filesystems will benefit in different ways with large block sizes...." explaining:

"Btrfs linearises writes due to it's COW behaviour and this is trades off read speed. i.e. we take more seeks to read data so we can keep the write speed high. By using large blocks, you're reducing the number of seeks needed to find anything, and hence the read speed will increase. Write speed will be pretty much unchanged because btrfs does linear writes no matter the block size.

"XFS doesn't linearise writes and optimises it's layout for a large number of disks and a low number of seeks on reads - the opposite of btrfs. Hence large block sizes reduce the number of writes XFS needs to write a given set of data+metadata and hence write speed increases much more than the read speed (until you get to large tree traversals)."