5：创建和删除大量文件（文件量一定）. 특히 시놀로지에서는 데이터 보호와 백업의 용이함을 장점으로 내세운 Btrfs를 권장합니다. . EXT4 is very low-hassle, normal journaled filesystem. The two primary reasons I use btrfs are easy to setup and maintain RAID arrays, and. Btrfs would be adding features you most likely don't need. Some think of the B-tree file system as a better, more modern alternative to ext4. EXT4. 4 EXT4 / XFS / Btrfs RAID Performance On Four HDDs Storage : 2019-12-28: Benchmarking The Experimental Bcachefs File-System Against Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS & ZFS Storage : 2019-06-25: Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. A continuación, os vamos a explicar brevemente las principales características de EXT4 y de Btrfs. Also I've thought about btrfs again. BTRFS solves all the problems I had so far: supports online resizing - both extending and shrinking. Ext4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. 356 Btrfs—short for "B-Tree File System" and frequently pronounced "butter" or "butter eff ess"—is the most advanced filesystem present in the mainline Linux kernel. Both ext4 and XFS should be able to handle it. The only realistic benchmark is the one done on a real application in real conditions. And xfs. It utilizes a b+tree structure instead of the traditional linear layout found in most filesystems today, allowing it to better manage larger datasets more efficiently than other systems like ext4 or Xfs. Linux vs. 7 - EXT4 vs. There’s very little difference between EXT4 and XFS, both in total throughput and behavior over time. And ext3. Thanks again! Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. Linux 4. Ext4 is the default system for most Distros. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. This time around, ext4 has managed. We may have lengthy talk on ext vs XFS vs f2fs and btrfs vs zfs and there are many more points to be mentioned, but for regular users. Is XFS better than btrfs? September 30, 2023 by Garry. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. Outside of that discussion the question is about specifically the recovery speed of running fsck / xfs_repair against any volume formatted in xfs vs ext4, the backup part isnt really relevent back in the ext3 days on multi TB volumes u’d be running fsck for days!Btfs not meant to replace ext4, they are in a different category, ext4 is simple, old and stable while btrfs brings new ideas and goes into very different direction. 7. I'm not asking "What is the best filesystem?"—There is no such thing as 'the. EXT4 is better for small files and day to day use. Nowadays btrfs is very stable and the tools to recover from fs corruption have been getting much better as well. Allerdings hatte BTRFS eine deutlich bessere Leistung bei kleinen. Enjoy! TSU. Depends on what you're looking for. On that list, only xfs is older. ext4 ファイルシステムは、2 32 個を超える inode をサポートしません。 XFS は inode を動的に割り当てます。It provides a basic Unix- like file system for Linux, using virtual directories to handle physical devices, and storing data in fixed-length blocks on the physical devices. I am using this: NTFS Windows C: + NTFS Windows D: (all data) + EXT4 Linux /. One of the biggest differences between them is that their supported operating system. It's the fastest option bar none if you have enough RAM. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. The benchmark I linked attributes this to copy-on-write behaviour of btrfs. A snapshot is a subvolume that shares its data and metadata with another subvolume, using COW capabilities. 1. ZFS combines a filesystem and volume manager. Linux 5. Ability to shrink filesystem. 2. Die Benchmark-Testergebnisse zeigten, dass BTRFS etwas niedrigere Lese- und Schreibgeschwindigkeiten als EXT4 hatte. Both timeshift and borg write to it. XFS and ext4 are probably where I'd look for a single disk hard drive. That being said, it is meant as a temporary solution to migrate data to a native Unix file system, such as ZFS or UFS. This can take anywhere from 10 minutes to even hours, depending on the partition size and whether you have a rotational or solid-state hard drive. 0 unterstützt. It's fine otherwise, but if you ever think you might want to shrink your partition, use ext4 or btrfs instead. g. What we mean is that we need something like resize2fs (ext4) for enlarge or shrunk on the fly, and not required to use another filesystem to store the dump for the resizing. This is the most desired feature of Btrfs. A tool for managing BTRFS and LVM snapshots. So if you have a SSD and care about the wear of that then. File systems based on copy-on-write (also known as write-anywhere), such as Reiser4, Btrfs and ZFS, have no need to use traditional journal to protect metadata, because they are never updated in-place. OpenSUSE hiện sử dụng btrfs làm tùy chọn mặc định cho phân vùng /root, nơi đặt hệ điều hành. buying used laptops with older ssd vs a new one. Find out which file system suits your needs best. Till the moment, the ext4 seems to be a better choice on the desktop system since it is. Notes[ edit] ^ IBM introduced JFS with the initial release of AIX OS/2 Warp. Si su aplicación falla con números de inodo grandes, monte el sistema de archivos XFS con la opción -o inode32 para imponer números de inodo inferiores a 232. A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. It’s an improved version of the older Ext3 file system that includes a lot of great features, including ones for Solid State Drives (SSDS). ZFS on FreeBSD may be faster than BTRFS on Linux. - Tính năng tự khôi phục tập tin. 我们主要讨论Linux中主流的三个文件系统：Ext4、XFS以及Btrfs的功能特点 ext4 文件系统由 ext3 文件系统改进而来，而后者又是从 ext2 文件系统改进而来。 虽然 ext4 文件系统已经非常稳定，是过去几年中绝大部分发行版的默认选择，但它是基于陈旧的代码开发而来。I've compiled in tmpfs for over a decade now. Either way you go, just leave EXT4 where it is, in the ground. Its not faster or more stable then the other two. 17現在、Ext4と比べ特にBtrfsが遅かったりはしない。SSD上の動作であればむしろ有利なくらいだ。 つまり、Ext4のほうが速く、Btrfsが遅いカーネルもある。 例を示そう。 Linux5. It has been tried and tested, it is no doubt a solid and stable filesystem. Also consider XFS, which works better for extremely large files. I understand if I use zfs/btrfs i will miss out on any data redundancy features but maybe pick up some added features like better consistency, snapshots, ect or should I just stick with ext4. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. But. As far as I know (please someone correct me), ZFS needs equally sized drives to work, BTRFS can handle differently sized drives. In practice, I don't consider the Btrfs slowdown really relevant for desktop usage on an SSD, VM performance aside. It. The maximum partition size of a btrfs file system is 16 exbibytes, and the maximum file size is also 16 exbibytes. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. Considering switching from a mixture of XFS and ext4, but only to Tux3 once that's merged. So…. Actually, Btrfs might have the upper hand there even, if zstd filesystem compression is used. My current setup is /@ for the rootfs, /@home for home dir, works great. but rather comparable to the usage of md-raid underneath or LVM. Hi, I think BTRFS is actually faster then ZFS on Linux. 对于一些文件系统如Ext4等，在硬盘格式化时就全部确定了，而对于XFS则是动态生成的，BtrfS则是更特别的动态实现。. 但无论如何，各个文件系统都需要存储这三类信息，因为这是内核规定的（见下）。. 04 Disco Dingo was running on the Threadripper setup while using the Linux Git kernel from the mainline PPA. XFS and btrfs are two advanced file systems for Linux that offer significant improvements over ext4. $ sudo su - # fsck. I think ext4 is _much_ faster at fsck. Improve this answer. Recommended for general use. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. XFS has been quite rock solid for me since the Linux 3. If you omit the size parameter, a journal size based on the size of the file system is used. Btrfs trails the other options for a database in terms of latency and throughput. It also wasn't formatted with -m finobt=1 which is a game-changer for XFS performance with small files and heavy metadata updates. Features of the XFS and ZFS. Checksumming, along with copy-on-write, provides the key method of ensuring file system integrity after unexpected power loss. Performance: Ext4 performs better in everyday tasks and is faster for small file writes. A) crater. BTRFS has (by far) the better ecosystem of tools and utilities. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. The supported size of the filesystem may vary depend on Linux distribution versions. XFS and ext4 now calculate a checksum on metadata and their journal files. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. doc_willis • 2 yr. ext4 was supposed to be a stop gap until a better Linux filesystem came along. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. But still iffy on high raid levels. Use whatever your distro vendor supports: on Redhat and spinoffs, use XFS+LVM (the latter gives you snapshotting capabilities today;: XFS itself will receive them in the medium term), on Suse use BTRFS. 15 Comparing KPTI/Retpoline. However ZFS does come at one major downside, it needs more resources in just about every way one can imagine, ZFS is best with more disks, more RAM, more CPU, more Bandwidth, more SSD’s for caching…. Multimedia Sanctuaries: With large files as daily bread, ext4 is indispensable. e. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. On the other hand, for Linux/Unix-based devices, it might be a bit of a challenge choosing one among many options. 2. Notes[ edit] ^ IBM introduced JFS with the initial release of AIX OS/2 Warp. BTRFS has a number of issues with optimizations (mostly minor) and Problems with Scrubbing and Raid56. Having this opportunity I wanted to put some hard numbers to my previous observations regarding ext4 vs Btrfs performance on my T430 running Qubes OS R4. While RAID 5 and 6 can be compared to RAID Z. ext3 is the most common format. Starting with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. The btrfs backup multi-disk arrangement, of different disk sizes in single mode was for me a trial of btrfs. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file. That bug apart, any delayed allocation filesystem (ext4 and btrfs included) will lose a significant number or un-synched data in case of uncontrolled poweroff. Each file system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. 04 Disco Dingo was running on the Threadripper setup while using the Linux Git kernel from the mainline PPA. I have hard reset my machines running XFS and not once did I have any problems or need to give the partition the "spank of life" if you will. This is useful, though far less complete than the block-by-block checksums of btrfs and ZFS. openZFS would be another great option, except for licensing issues. A. - chống phân mảnh dữ liệu nhanh chóng. Hope that answers your question. 7 - EXT4 vs. As Microsoft makes more progress with ReFS on Windows 11, Linux is also getting performance optimizations and improvements on some of its major file systems, namely, F2FS, Btrfs, and EXT4. Recommended for general use. 4. 3TB HDD formatted as NTFS for main files. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. Ahh…zfs is older than both ext4 and btrfs being released in 2006. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. Does it means that Btrfs is better than Ext4 now ? btrfs has already long been an excellent and stable filesystem. To organize that data, ZFS uses a flexible tree in which each new system is a child. Journaling ensures file system integrity after system crashes (for example, due to power outages) by keeping a record of file system. After deciding to use LVM2 as volumemanager on our servers there was also the wish for an online resizeable filesystem. data, so it's possible to only keep the metadata with redundancy ("dup" is the default BTRFS behaviour on HDDs). EXT4 VS BTRFS. Another point against btrfs is the insane amount of memory it uses. For a single disk, both are good options. Backups and CoW, are why I use btrfs. I have 6 disks so I have created 3 logical disks, 2 SSDs each - just for testing. I've also ran some experiments on some older machines with slow IDE drives, once while installing a distro with ext4, and once with btrfs+zstd as root. Not only does both file systems feature a more robust data assurances then XFS (the mature fsck for Ext4 and checksums and data. XFS. Very much depends if you want to go JBOD style or have a RAID-type-style though. That one is solid and mature. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. to get a significantly faster result than xfs. xfs/. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation of. Ext4 for Synology NAS devices, most users should pick Btrfs for the data integrity benefits that it provides. Ext4 file systems. Data integrity protection. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. EXT4 and XFS show similarities in some features. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. I’d have to say that depends a lot on your perspective as to ‘age’. ext4 is certainly is much more stable than btrfs. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. NVMe drives formatted to 4096k. 0 X. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. When space gets low, Btrfs automatically expands the volume in chunks of roughly 1 GB. In today's video, we will talk about the 4 Major Linux File Systems. F2FS vs. In summary, both Btrfs and Ext4 are good options for your NAS, and the choice between the two ultimately depends on your specific needs and use case. BTRFS improves file addressing capacity to 16 EiB and volume sizes up to 16 EiB, just like ZFS. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. The space savings with zstd compression are insane, and I see virtually no performance degradation. The main thing is to use latest Linux kernels to avoid old kernel Btrfs implementation. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. Its OS comes with only one by default (mostly it’s NTFS, FAT 32, or HFS). Mar 14, 2012. Regarding boot drives : Use enterprise grade SSDs, do not use low budget commercial grade equipment. A execução do comando quotacheck em um sistema de. Both. On the NVMe SSD, the four-thread FS-Mark was the fastest on XFS followed by Btrfs. The reason that Ext4 is often recommended is that it is the most used and trusted filesystem out there on Linux today. SUSE Linux Enterprise Server ships with different file systems from which to choose, including Btrfs, Ext4, Ext3, Ext2 and XFS. 2. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. XFS is optimized for large file transfers and parallel I/O operations, while ext4 is optimized for general-purpose use with a focus on security. Both are good file systems. When use btrfs it's 35-40 MB/s. Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1) Id Fmt Data Metadt Rel_Perf 0 - 512 0 2 1. 6,861. ago. Note that everything with LVM is at the block level which has major limitations. Btrfs vs. 10 4. /etc/fstab /dev/sda5 / ext4 defaults,noatime 0 1 Doing so breaks applications that rely on access time, see fstab#atime options for possible solutions. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. What we mean is that we need something like resize2fs (ext4) for enlarge or shrunk on the fly, and not required to use another filesystem to store the dump for the resizing. Otherwise use BTRFS. 500GB HDD formatted as NTFS for luks containers. 這裡有 4 個關於 EXT4 和 Btrfs 的附加問題。在這裡查看答案。 1. 15 or newer (Please the same OS using same activating services and same apps!)The snapshots do not take up any space. checksum verification on each file. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across the. . In a few words, I just need a really reliable and fast filesystem for years ahead, with the care of SSD in mind, I need it mostly for gaming, video-audio production, working with a lot of small/medium files (from 100-500Kb to 100-150Gb) sending them. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example:8. For example btrfs supports transparent file compression. We also provide useful. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. For example, xfs cannot shrink. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. Using Btrfs, just expanding a zip file and trying to immediately enter that new expanded folder in Nautilus, I am presented with a “busy” spinning graphic as Nautilus is preparing to display the new folder contents. ext4 is not recommended. Then again maybe ZFS is the best to use. #6. Because ext4 can't beat btrfs when it comes to snapshot/delete. Windows users don’t have much of a choice regarding a file system. But as some users found out, automatic snapshot (at the time it was first released) ate disk space on single user installations. Files less than ~2KiB can be stored in the metadata section (“inline” in the b-tree nodes), so as not to waste most of a block. ZFS also has more options for caches and such things than EXT4. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features like extent blocking mapping, dynamic allocation inode, and defragmentation. 6. - Tính năng tự khôi phục tập tin. Till the moment, the ext4 seems to be a better choice on the desktop system since it is presented as a default file system, as well as it is faster than the btrfs when transferring files. windows and linux use one big D: for data storage, NTFS C: and EXT4 Linux are only for OS and software. . Allerdings hatte BTRFS eine deutlich bessere Leistung bei kleinen Dateien als EXT4. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe. Btrfs, ZFS, and bcachefs are probably your best bets out of the 19 options considered. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. I know how to maintain it even in case of horrible events. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in. Btrfs removes duplicate data from disk directly while Ext4 cannot do that, ext4. Otherwise, I don't think you'd notice the performance difference. This is what I ended up doing; BTRFS for operating system partition and ext4 for games. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. 0 hard drive when using EXT4 and XFS. Checksum: if your file (or some metadata) gets corrupted, the checksum will detect and in some case. By far, XFS can handle large data better than any other filesystem on this list and do it reliably too. 8. The SATA 3. - Bảo vệ dữ liệu. . In fact, BTRFS is also a copy-on-write system to support fault tolerance and file recovery, and provides easy management. ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Reasons why I avoided btrfs:Increased Performance of ext4 vs. Ext4 比 Btrfs 更穩定嗎？ 儘管在撰寫本文時 Btrfs 缺乏穩定性和. For reducing the size of a filesystem, there are two purported wats forward, according to xfs developers. XFS vs. Thanks. For pure data storage, however, the btrfs is the winner over the ext4, but time still will tell. While it is possible to migrate from ext4 to XFS, it. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. Btrfs is especially nice for storing games because of deduplication, ZSTD compression (which ended up saving me about. Ext3 and ext4 have some very specific differences, which I'll focus on here. Stackable file. Hardwareseitig gibt es bei Btrfs jedoch Ausnahmen. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. . This section highlights the differences when using or administering an XFS file system. The major difference between ext4 and XFS file systems is that the ext4 file system works better for fewer size files (single write/read thread) while the XFS works more efficiently. 여러 가지의 HDD를 장착하여 사용을 하신다면 사진이나 중요한 자료들을 저장하는 드라이브에는. One thing that seems to be true for BTRFS in all three articles… For whatever reason it seems to be much slower initially starting up stuff, eg during a boot and launching an application, but otherwise can perform well. Da Btrfs sehr leistungshungriger ist, benötigen NAS-Systeme dafür einen starken Prozessor und ausreichend Arbeitsspeicher. Tùy chọn mặc. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage :. XFS doesn't have any RAID, while Btrfs RAID is not yet completely stable and is in its early days. I converted my ext4 disks (3 x ssd + 1 x hdd) to btrfs, and all was well. But to be honest, it might be easier for me to work around than the lack of the possibility for single-file clone that btrfs, XFS etc. だが、Linux 5. The way you describe this workload, I think it is not very demanding. I suggest to give the arch wiki a read to get an overview what btrfs provides and where it’s limited in comparison to other solutions. SSD Optimization. Like I said, you could do ZFS, but definitely feels a bit like overkill. 5 inch SSDs, which from what I understand, should work in a SAS chassis. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. 4 HDD RAID performance per his request with Btrfs, EXT4, and XFS while using consumer HDDs and an AMD Ryzen APU setup that could work out for a NAS type low-power system for anyone else that may be interested. 再將資料再回存到 NAS, 這部份會花費很多時間. Moreover, the ext4 is more beneficial when the. Out of curiosity I have tried BTRFS (still unstable so I can't really expect to be able to use it) and noticed that the read speed is about 150% of ext4 - while write speed is comparable. Regarding boot drives : Use enterprise grade SSDs, do not use low budget commercial grade equipment. XFS vs. EXT2/3/4: Extended Filesystem is by far the most popular filesystem among Linux desktop installations. If, for example, most your data writes are file add (like storing your camera roll, your movie collection,etc), btrfs snapshots will use virtually no extra space. An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has published Linux filesystem benchmarks comparing XFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems. ran defragment utility to compress all existing files. NTFS OpenBenchmarking. ZFS does have advantages for handling data corruption (due to data checksums and scrubbing) - but unless you're spreading the data between multiple disks, it will at most tell you "well, that file's corrupted, consider it gone now". use ZFS only w/ ECC RAM. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. Out of curiosity I have tried BTRFS (still unstable so I can't really expect to be able to use it) and noticed that the read speed is about 150% of ext4 - while write speed. The ext4 file system records information about when a file was last accessed and there is a cost associated with recording it. 1 Like. removes the need for LVM and thus eliminates 1 layer for filesystem-ing (if that’s a word) On top of that, in 2008, the principal developer of EXT3 and. It's stable and time-proven. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. 1 / Windows 95 OSR2 (OEM Service Release 2) and then later in Windows 98. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in oldschool HDDs I. It is the default file system in RHEL 6, Debian 7, Ubuntu 18 and so on. Higher scores are better. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. Here are some more benchmarks. BTRFS claims to offer a lot (data-loss resiliency, self-healing if RAID, checksumming of metadata and data, compression, snapshots). I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. I think you can trust XFS. This is why XFS might be a great candidate for an SSD. #11. Built By the Slant team. Snapraid says if the disk size is below 16TB there are no limitations, if above 16TB the parity drive has to be XFS because the parity is a single file and EXT4 has a file size limit of 16TB. Not a ton of bells and whistles, but they Just Work. As others have said, btrfs is newer and offers a few advanced features for backups (snapshots) and data integrity. EXT4 is very low-hassle, normal journaled filesystem. Though personally I'd still go with ext4 primarily because despite recognizing some potential benefits of btrfs, I really don't see them as important for how I use my computers. Example: Dropbox is hard-coded to use ext4, so will refuse to work on ZFS and BTRFS. Silent data corruption, sometimes referred to as bitrot, is more. El ext4 y xf. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. To reserve an external journal with a specified size when you create an XFS file system, specify the -l logdev=device,size=size option to the mkfs. Short answer: under GNU/Linux, you should use a GNU/Linux native file system, such as ext4, XFS or btrfs, as your root partition, for stability and security. 3. Potential for data loss: While btrfs has features to protect against data loss, these features can be complex to configure and may not always work as intended, leading to the possibility of data loss. The 3TB HDD are ext4. 3 XFS. 7 - Btrfs vs. 10. ) TL, DR: All 3 major next gen CoW file systems have their advantages and drawbacks, and I figure integrating them into my workflow is the only way to fairly evaluate them see how they work for myself. 2.