To make the benchmarks above more clear, it might might help to normalise them relative to the performance of ext4 on each disk:. 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. 4 To 4. however, since last few years we seriously. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device: It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). A conventional RAID array is a simple abstraction layer that sits between a filesystem and a set of disks. XFS also tended to perform well along with the seldom mentioned NILFS2. 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 solid-state drive. So in some cases there are no more free blocks and the filesystem is full. Btrfs on SSD, XFS on HDD. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. It has wider compatibility than NTFS, which means it's more likely to work with media players, consoles, and a variety of. From 4 - 80 TB pools. Whilst it supposedly has advantages for dealing with larger files, this for me has always been eclipsed by the fact that you can't shrink xfs file systems. Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. XFS allows multi-threaded concurrent journal commit while EXT4 has single threaded serial commit. As well as with the IOzone write test. 1, 4. - No RAID. However, to be honest, it’s not the best Linux file system comparing to other Linux file systems. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. Una vez que hemos conocido las principales características de EXT4, vamos a hablar sobre Btrfs, el que se conoce como sucesor natural del sistema de archivos EXT4. Use the -L flag of mkfs. xfs: 0. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. I think in many ways btrfs is the better filesystem, but I seem to have noticed that it takes longer to copy data than on ext4. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. Ext4 파일 시스템. 2. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). Both VM’s are on a XFS based filesystem on the hypervisor. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. Mdadm comparison, the dual-HDD Btrfs RAID benchmarks, and four-SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Btrfs benchmarks are RAID Linux benchmarks on these four Intel SATA 3. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. Here are my results. ZFS meanwhile still handily beat out the UFS competition -- the Sun/Oracle ZFS was 53% faster than UFS+S and an impressive 2. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. F2FS vs. 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. But btrfs also aims to provide next-gen features that break the. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. try both and test the speeds for yourself. Ext4 is probably the final evolution of the ext filesystem (which started with ext, then ext2, ext3, and now ext4). Here is a look at the Linux 5. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. Based on these, I'd suggest either F2FS or XFS. 3. Share. Recent improvements to the XFS file system have shown it to have the better performance characteristics for Kafka’s workload without any compromise in stability. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. 9, 97. Compare your own system(s) to this result file with the Phoronix Test Suite by running the command: phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1608041-LO-LINUX44BT99XFS also consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then the Ext3 or Ext4 variants will be faster. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. The maximum total size of a ZFS file system is exbibytes minus one byte. If you want to see how Bcachefs compares to. Performance of the FS usually only matters for some very specific corner cases like high performance databases, huge storage systems or whatnot. 1601 tps). AnthonyWC commented Dec 15, 2022. EXT4 being the “safer” choice of the two, it is by the most commonly used FS in linux based systems, and most applications are developed and tested on EXT4. Improve this answer. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. 3. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 15 kernel was unchanged compared to Linux 3. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. Cette section pointe les différences entre utiliser et administrer un système de fichiers XFS. . Btrfs vs. EXT4 is a legacy file system, and Btrfs represents future developments in the Linux space. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. 6. 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. 14 stable. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the > latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!파일시스템 비교 (ext4와 xfs) 7. 3. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. For the most. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. exFAT is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. 14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. exFAT vs NTFS. F2FS vs. an XFS filesystem on a straight disk partition. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. 7. Provides good performance for many enterprise work load, and probably some desktop ones too. It provides good performance with SSD and supports the TRIM (and FITRIM) feature to keep good SSD performance over time (this clears unused memory blocks for quick later write access). Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. The conclusion for this Oracle SLOB test that uses 8Kb block size I/O is that XFS performs better than EXT4 under the exact same default configuration conditions – further, XFS is able to better utilize the CPU available to drive performance, due to the parallel I/O based on allocation groups. Offizieller Beitrag. From what I read. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. ext4 -b 1024 /dev/your_partition. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. After stepping through all pages in an article, it’d become apparent that each fs might perform better running certain tests. Which is the winner in a ZFS vs BTRFS scenario? Which one brings the best performance in an EXT4 vs XFS standoff? Truth is, each ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, or EXT4. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger filesExt4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. for data security and integrity zfs is the best. my nextcloud site). This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that helps you make an informed decision. 7. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. Each volume is like a single disk file. ZFS allows users to move these files anywhere and even to attach them to the ZFS on. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger files The question is XFS vs EXT4. The one they your distribution recommends. It turned out that XFS is slow with many small files - you should not use it for this use case. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. See Sysctl#Virtual memory for details. Comparison of archive formats. Observations. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. 0 and particularly with F2FS seeing fixes as a result of it being picked up by Google for support on Pixel devices, I was curious to see how the current popular. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. They added the use of extents (with usual size of around 1MB) to improve good performance in handling big files. Besides the XFS/EXT4/F2FS tests on the Western Digital hard drive, I also repeated the tests on a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SATA 3. Btrfs come with compression algorithms present in the filesystem, allowing data to be compressed at the filesystem level right when written to the system. XFS. XFS tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. Share. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24 ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. EXT4 has entirely different design goals, none of which are data integrity. In a significant data corruption, Ext2 and Ext3 file systems are more possible and easy to recover data due to their data redundancy compared with Ext4. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. EXT4 I have no experience with, but XFS, despite all the hype, I think is better avoided. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. As cotas XFS não são uma opção remountable. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. #filesystem #ext4 #xfs #linuxExplicación de las diferencias entre sistemas de archivos, en este vídeo se comparan los 2 mas usados en GNU/Linux. Ticket Spinlocks. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. Momentum. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. A filesystem is ext4 if it uses a feature that isn't in the ext3 driver, and ext3 if it isn't ext4 but uses a feature that isn't in the ext2 driver. 10 's new experimental ZFS desktop install option in opting for using ZFS On Linux in place of EXT4 as the root file-system, here are some quick benchmarks looking at the out-of-the-box performance of ZFS/ZoL vs. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. ago. I would recommend choosing between ext4 and xfs filesystems. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Here are some more benchmarks. Here are my results. The most commonly used are Ext4, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS which is the most recent file system released back in 2018. ZFS has built-in RAID support with various RAID-Z levels (RAID-Z, RAID-Z2, and RAID-Z3). F2FS vs. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. Btrfs with its copy-on-write behavior leads to it having a lot of features but at least in its out-of-the-box behavior generally being a fair amount slower than EXT4/F2FS/XFS. ext4 and also reiserfs store files in a different way. Updating 1 million files takes ages. ZFS, Tux3, and Reiser4 weren't tested in. For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. EXT4 vs. misleading. Btrfs was developed specifically to facilitate quick administration and maintenance. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. • PCIe SSD devices designed based on the NVMe specification are called NVMe-based PCIe SSD’s • Provides a scalable host controller interface for devices in various form. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. XFS ext4 ext3. 6. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. Comparison of file archivers. We decided to get to the bottom of it by quantitatively investigating MongoDB performance on XFS so you can compare whether EXT4 is a better choice for your. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. 7 on it. XFS distributes inodes evenly across the entire file system. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference Storage : 2019-04-24: FreeBSD ZFS vs. Vide. EXT4 and XFS both use efficient lookup methods for file names, but if you ever need to run tools over the directories such as ls or find you will be very glad to have the files in manageable chunks of 1,000 - 10,000 files. As always, your mileage may vary 🙂. 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. In practice, it does not become a problem since it only occurs if remaining space is only a few blocks. doc_willis • 2 yr. 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. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. Many benchmarks put EXT4 I/O a little ahead on BTRFS, but we are talking thousanth's of second here. I installed CentOS 6. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Fast Transactions: XFS provides the benefits of a journaling file system without the hit to performance by leveraging tree structures for fast search and space allocations. ZFS, the Zettabyte file system, was developed as part of the Solaris operating system created by Sun Microsystems. 2010’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Recommended for general use. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. 0 mainline kernel and using. The benchmark I linked attributes this to copy-on-write behaviour of btrfs. After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. The NTFS support was powered by FUSE. For an average user the only thing that really matters are the special features like checksums, journaling, snapshots and so on but you. 2. To organize that data, ZFS uses a flexible tree in which each new system is a child file of a previous system. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of subvolumes is nice too, rather than having to partition). Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. Snapshots, transparent compression and quite importantly blocklevel checksums. Ext4 file system is the successor to Ext3, and the mainstream file system under Linux. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. 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）。. if date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Beyond just testing the EXT4, Btrfs, and NILFS2 file-systems, we also threw in some results from EXT3 and XFS. 6-pve1. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. XFS is the default FS on RHEL and several Red Hat engineers work full time on it. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. Finally, at last, ZFS managed to outperform both EXT4 and Ubuntu. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. XFS scales better to extremely large file systems and high thread counts. which btw you should put in here then as well. XFS (2002) – originally SGI Irix 5. List of archive formats. 86 1. Btrfs vs Ext4. Refer to corresponding file system page in case there were performance improvements instructions, e. EXT / XFS similar behavior – mostly compromise between throughput and latency – EXT4 – higher throughput, more jitter – XFS – lower throughput, less jitter significant impact of “write barriers” – requires reliable drives / RAID controller with BBU minimal TRIM impact – depends on SSD model (different over-provisioning etc. EXT4 has been the Linux default since 2006, following the previous EXT3. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. xfs -l size=64m (notes fromHas anyone compared the IO performance of WSL2 "emulated disk" vs a bare physical disk from wsl --mount --bare ? (Is there any comparison of ext4 vs XFS vs ZFS? I will run fio myself but I'd like to compare benchmarks to avoid wasting too much time). there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. TrueOS ZoF vs. Linux's Current File System. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example:For this round of testing on a Dell PowerEdge server with dual EPYC 7601 processors were using four Samsung 860 EVO SATA 3. 6. Neither file system consistently outperforms the other in all workloads. ZFS 101—Understanding ZFS storage and performance. It can store large files and has advanced features as compared to Ext2 and Ext3. EXT4, XFS and ZFS comparison. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. • Specification defines an optimized register interface, command set and feature set. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. ZFS is much more complex than XFS and EXT4 but, that also means it has more tunables/options. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. I chose two established journaling filesystems EXT4 and XFS two modern Copy on write systems that also feature inline compression ZFS and BTRFS and as a relative benchmark for the achievable compression SquashFS. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. Improve this answer. ) – depends on how full the SSD isSadly XFS is not as as efficient with tiny files as other filesystems but the advantage make it come out ahead anyway. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. Maybe adding Btrfs compression would be negligible outside of storage benchmarks. brown2green. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. As a long-used file system, ext4 is notable because it is proven to be reliable, capable, and high-performing. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. 34, NO. 0 and today those results are being complemented by the solid-state drive results. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. We currently recommend XFS for production deployments. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). ext4 has better performance with large files. XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como. brown2green. 2020. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. Features of the XFS and ZFS. Observations. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. EXT4 performance is excellent. The Phoronix Test Suite evaluated software RAID arrays on rotational HDDs using XFS, EXT4 and Btrfs. 15 FS performance to Linux 3. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. 1. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. btrfs: 1. 7. In the case of the Intel 900p SSD, the XFS results were too fast to accurately measure while EXT4 and F2FS took just two seconds to complete while Btrfs took six seconds. 1. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. xfs: 0. Figure 3 - Using psync engine with FIO* tool. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. One of the biggest differences between them is that their supported operating system. You can see the stall issue that can be caused by EXT4. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. ntfs support would too, and would avoid the 4 gig file size limit, and limit of disk partitions over 32gig that fat32 doesn't support. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. EXT4 lacks more robust features but is stable and well-supported on all Linux operating systems. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". Btrfs was edging ahead of XFS and Btrfs with the IOzone write test although the performance on the Linux 3. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. If you are concerned about your data integrity, as you clearly are, then use ZFS. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. 88. Bcachefs in its current state was benchmarked against EXT4/XFS/Btrfs/F2FS/ZFS with each file-system being tested with its default mount options and done using an Intel Optane 900p 280GB NVMe solid-state drive. 2070 tps). Posts: 5,135. 3. ago. EXT4:2. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. 2070 tps). Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. darkimmortal Member. I was aware that ext4 as a extension of ext3 as an continuation of ext2 has a lot of legacie structures and thus also more likely a higher overhead. If you have single vmdk on dedicated VMFS I wouldn't expect any difference compare to RDM. We recommend EXT4 or XFS. NILFS is especially designed for flash memory drives, but does not really. Posted by Dimitri Kravtchuk on Wed 13 May 2020 20:15 UTC Tags: innodb, Benchmarks, xfs, ext4, MySQL, Performance, DoubleWrite. Tested for this comparison were Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, and F2FS from an SSD while running with the Linux 4. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash. On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 08:59:13PM +0000, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > What would be the best filesystem to run PostgreSQL on, in Terms of Performance > and data Integrity? Uh, which operating system? If it is Linux, many people like ext4 or xfs. ext4 also introduced delayed allocation of data, which adds a bit more risk with unplanned server outages while decreasing fragmentation and improving performance. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. #6. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has published Linux filesystem benchmarks comparing XFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems. To me this looks like the best option in terms of performance, though it doesn't appear to be a popular choice -- reading the documentation, as well as discussions in various threads here I only see most users debating about NFS vs SMB vs iSCSI. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Storage. That's disgusting enough for me not to want it. With Dbench as well, XFS sees the largest drop in performance from KPTI and Retpoline support. See full list on linuxopsys.