[yjftsjthsd-h]

> You don't need your filesystem to integrate checksumming when dm/lvm already do it for you.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dm-integrity

> It uses journaling for guaranteeing write atomicity by default, which effectively halves the write speed

I'd really rather not do that, thanks.

[ajross]

So... there's a reason you had to cite a throwaway comment on a distro wiki and not documentation. Needless to say journaling metadata (something done in some form by every filesystem you will ever use!) does not, in fact, "halve the write speed".

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> So... there's a reason you had to cite a throwaway comment on a distro wiki and not documentation.

No, I read the official kernel docs too; the Arch wiki just happened happened to be a quicker way to describe it.

From https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/device-mapper/dm-integri... -

> The dm-integrity target can also be used as a standalone target, in this mode it calculates and verifies the integrity tag internally. In this mode, the dm-integrity target can be used to detect silent data corruption on the disk or in the I/O path.

> There’s an alternate mode of operation where dm-integrity uses a bitmap instead of a journal. If a bit in the bitmap is 1, the corresponding region’s data and integrity tags are not synchronized - if the machine crashes, the unsynchronized regions will be recalculated. The bitmap mode is faster than the journal mode, because we don’t have to write the data twice, but it is also less reliable, because if data corruption happens when the machine crashes, it may not be detected.

This is more clearly presented lower down in the list of modes, in which most options describe how they don't actually protect against crashes, except for journal mode:

> J - journaled writes

> data and integrity tags are written to the journal and atomicity is guaranteed. In case of crash, either both data and tag or none of them are written. The journaled mode degrades write throughput twice because the data have to be written twice.

On further reflection, I grant that that might only be talking about the integrity metadata, in which case we just don't know about the impact to data writes and it would be useful to go benchmark to see what the hit is in practice.

EDIT: So I went looking to see if anyone had done that benchmarking and found https://github.com/t13a/dm-integrity-benchmarks which seems to show that actually yes dm-integrity is that bad on data writes. Of course, its possible saving grace is that everything else with the same features also had a performance hit. I also found https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxadmin/comments/1crtggd/why_dmi... talking about it.

[ajross]

FWIW, the github link you show clearly shows the ext4-on-dm stack to be FASTER than ZFS!

It only falls behind, and very signficantly so, on the 1M sequential write test, exactly the situation where you'd expect there to be the least delta between systems! I'm going to bet anything that's a misconfigured RAID.

Frankly looking at that from a "will this work best for my general purpose filesystem used mostly to handle giant software builds and Zephyr test suites" it seems like a no brainer to pick dm, especially so given the simplicity argument.