[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
> > scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
> > I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
> > which struck me as reliable.
> As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should 
> probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly 
> impact your application.

XFS is slower than ext4 on certain metadata-heavy workloads, and faster in
multiple-stream workloads.  It also scales better than ext4 on very big
filesystems.  It is, however, more memory-hungry.

I use it extensively wherever I don't expect more than one crash an year.
Otherwise, I go with ext4 (better fsck).

> I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out 
> of the box in most scenarios and to keep my installations as simple as 
> possible as it's unlikely I would feel any real difference by switching 
> to another filesystem.


  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply to: