10. resource utilization; finally, the impact of. Benchmarking EXT4 vs XFS for that many files, EXT4 doesn't come close. The purpose of that patch was to help to improve read scalability in direct i/o mode. ZFS's biggest disadvantage in my opinion is memory usage: If you have less than 16 GiB of RAM for a production server, you may want to. advantages. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. Published very recently by Phoronix, a series of benchmark tests. 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 Ubuntu 18. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. One of the biggest differences between them is that their supported operating system. 10 and 3. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. It can store large files and has advanced features as compared to Ext2 and Ext3. This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that helps you make an informed decision. . As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. Linux 4. exFAT is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. • 2 yr. For example, an XFS file system's size can be increased, but it cannot reduced. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. . 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). Increased Performance of ext4 vs. In our experience Kafka is known to have index failures on such file systems. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. Now today I had a power outage on our office server and I discovered that one file on the JFS volume has been completely corrupted. So each file-system will be 10 TB. Ext4#Improving performance and XFS#Performance. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. ago. Performance numbers shows that the XFS filesystem handles sequential writes better than the EXT4 filesystem for block sizes 256B, 4KiB, and 8KiB. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. I installed CentOS 6. 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 Ubuntu 18. 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. Page 1 of 4. ext4 is the safe choice that almost anyone. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. List of archive formats. 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. If you think that you need. F2FS vs. This is addressed in this knowledge base article; the main consideration for you will be the support levels available: Ext4 is supported up to 50TB, XFS up to 500TB. Offizieller Beitrag. Data Colossi & Data Centers: Ext4 is non-negotiable for handling extensive data transactions. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. XFS (2002) – originally SGI Irix 5. , power failure) could be acceptable. On the SSD, Bcachefs came in behind EXT4 again but faster than Btrfs while XFS and F2FS were the fastest for SQLite on this consumer-grade SATA SSD. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. It scales with a number of controller replicas, which can bring extra. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. El ext4 y xf. So syncing is a real pain process, for a week or more. XFS. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. F2FS vs. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . 7 - Btrfs vs. XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. Btrfs uses a checksum to ensure that the data doesn’t corrupt, on the other hand, Ext4 doesn’t ensure data integrity. It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID. 1829 tps). The problem with delayed allocation is data security. 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. We believe that btrfs has the correct feature set and roadmap to serve Ceph in the long-term, but. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. With the initial create test in the compile benchmark, the performance of ZFS was over 3. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. In sequential read performance, Btrfs and Bcachefs were terribly slow on the HDD while on the SSD Bcachefs was the slowest, just behind XFS while Btrfs and F2FS were competing for the. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. Then later, I was actually able to convert that from btrfs-raid10 to btrfs-raid1 overnight while in use. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4,7. 6. There are plenty of benefits for choosing XFS as a file system: XFS works extremely well with large files; XFS is known for its robustness and speed; XFS is particularly proficient at parallel input/output (I/O. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. The way you describe this workload, I think it is not very demanding. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24: Reiser4 File-System Benchmarks With Linux 4. 3. XFS allows multi-threaded concurrent journal commit while EXT4 has single threaded serial commit. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. Ext4 seems better suited for lower-spec configurations although it will work just fine on faster ones as well, and performance-wise still better than btrfs in most cases. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. . 1. If Btrfs and EXT4 aren’t cutting it for you or aren’t supported by your choice of distro, there are a few other popular choices for file systems. The next subsections detail read workloads, write workloads, meta-data workloads, macro workloads, and the impact of performance vs. It provides an unlimited subdirectory. XFS vs EXT4!This is a very common question when it comes to Linux filesystems and if you’re looking for the difference between XFS and EXT4, here is a quick summary:. The only case where XFS is slower is when creating/deleting a lot of small files. 7 on it. The reason is the design of XFS. 14 stable. ) – 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. 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。. 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. fast recovery, rivals XFS recovery times. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. 0 solid state drives using other file-systems -- including EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs with Linux 3. The test results show that the Galaxy Note 10 performs better than the one plus 7 Pro in terms of random and SQLite write speed. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. 10. Conclusion. NILFS is especially designed for flash memory drives, but does not really. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. XFS vs EXT4. 34, NO. 7 - EXT4 vs. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. The host is proxmox 7. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Because, firstly, it does not do data journalling or "ordered writing" and in a crash/reset you end up with random data (probably top secret files erased earlier) in your new files. Here are my results. 74 SMR. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. 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. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033-2EE) hard drives and the. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier. 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. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). 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. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. brown2green. When I write (something like dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=512k count=20000 conv=fdatasync,fsync) and watch the system using iostats, I see that both BTRFS and EXT4 are writing at approximately the same. I would recommend choosing between ext4 and xfs filesystems. From this several things can be seen: The default compression of ZFS in this version is lz4. 3. As long as filesystem journaling is concerned, XFS adopts far more so-04-22-2016 02:13 AM. The test data shown in the graphs below show modest differences between both. 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. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. Last week I posted some fresh Linux file-system tests on a hard drive but for those preferring solid-state drives, here are some fresh benchmarks. The last time I benchmarked them they were very close, with some differences for specific circumstances: XFS open() and readdir() remained fast as the number of files in a directory grew very large (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) whereas EXT4 performance degraded. . This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. "EXT4 does not support concurrent writes, XFS does" (But) EXT4 is more "mainline"Further Reading. • Specification defines an optimized register interface, command set and feature set. 3. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. 1. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. EXT4 on Ubuntu 19. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. ext4 on the other hand has delayed allocation and a lot of other goodies that will make it more space efficient. how horrible XFS metadata performance was prior to delaylog than how much better than EXT4 it is today, though it is substantially better with greater parallelism. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. I'm pretty sure some of the higher performance ones. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. This time around, ext4 has managed > to get a significantly faster result than xfs. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. After a week of testing Btrfs on my laptop, I can conclude that there is a noticeable performance penalty vs Ext4 or XFS. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. 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. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. The mount command for ext4 has the "stripe" option. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device:XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. Various internet sources suggest that XFS is faster and better, but taking into account that they also suggest that EXT4 is. XFS is the default FS on RHEL and several Red Hat engineers work full time on it. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. ) – improvements, bugfixes. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. When a copy-on-write is needed, the driver searches through the image's layers to find the right file, starting from the topmost layer. ago. Phoronix: Linux 4. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. El ext4 y xf. When running one copy of the SQLite embedded database library, the XFS file-system had a slim lead over NILFS2 and F2FS while EXT4 was the slowest on this Linux 5. ZFS can complete volume-related tasks like managing tiered storage and. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. I will use Ext4 until something more viable with at least the same level of stability takes its place. 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. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. Observations. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. 14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. 1. 0-050600-generic. Comparison of file archivers. XFS: screams with enormous files, fast recovery time. Ext4 is the evolution of the most used Linux filesystem, Ext3. EXT4 is a legacy file system, and Btrfs represents future developments in the Linux space. 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. Both VM’s are on a XFS based filesystem on the hypervisor. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. 7 Average speed : 87. Running on an x570 server board with Ryzen 5900X + 128GB of ECC RAM. The ext4 file system mainly enhances the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the Linux Kernel. It also had faster reads, though the differences were smaller. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. 14 ;LOGIN: vOL. F2FS vs. For an average user the only thing that really matters are the special features like checksums, journaling, snapshots and so on but you. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. I usually use ext4 on the root (OS) volume along with some space for VMs (that can be run on lvm/ext4). For more comprehensive coverage of performance improvements relating to storage and file systems, refer. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. As for performance, given sufficient RAM ZFS performance for me is anywhere from close to ext4 to surpassing ext4, depending on memory, available pool space, and compressibility of data. ReiserFS: Highly optimal small-file access. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. However, LVM can provide great performance as well, especially when used with specific (good-performing) filesystems like XFS or Ext4. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. Ubuntu has used ext4 by default since 2009’s Karmic Koala release. XFS File System. Linux's Current File System. Q0heleth added community triage labels Feb 13, 2023. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. an XFS filesystem on a straight disk partition. Presently, Ext4 is the maintainer deployed in the Android OS. I use Warp and mc support perf for benchmark. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. To be honest, one of the things that comes last in people’s thinking is to look at which file system on their PC is being used. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. Edit: fsdump / fsrestore means the corresponding system backup and restore to for that file system. Swap space. Copy link Member. e. e. ext3 is the most common format. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. LVM adds another layer which definitely does not make it more reliable. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. read link below. The benchmark I linked attributes this to copy-on-write behaviour of btrfs. what kind of improved performance do you get with these tweaks vs a vanilla EXT4? –. If you're on HDD and you need the ability to shrink the fs, then use EXT4, but you lose any COW benefits. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. Btrfs vs. ext4 is still a good filesystem, since it is rock stable and easy to recover from a crash. If you end up increasing the size of the box then it's going to become more relevant. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. g. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has published Linux filesystem benchmarks comparing XFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems. Finally, at last, ZFS managed to outperform both EXT4 and Ubuntu. ZFS has built-in RAID support with various RAID-Z levels (RAID-Z, RAID-Z2, and RAID-Z3). However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. To achieve expected performance by tweaking the IRQ affinity, consider few important parameters like Linux handling of the server topology, NIC driver stack, default. XFS. being written when I compare the traces), when I look at a representative “same” action I see 5 ops on XFS…there are only 2 for the same action on EXT4. xfs(8) command. EXT4/XFS achieve higher throughput (~7. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como. 03. With Bcachefs on its trek towards the mainline Linux kernel, this week I conducted some benchmarks using the very latest Bcachefs file-system code and compared its performance to the mainline Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system competitors on both rotating and solid-state storage. 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. If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Btrfs vs Ext4. XFS 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. MySQL Performance : XFS -vs- EXT4 Story. Sorted by: 3. Le système de fichiers ext4 est toujours pris en charge par Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 et peut être sélectionné au moment de l'installation. Ability to shrink filesystem. 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. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. First of all, some background history. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. 3. EXT4 vs. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. Tested on the SSD were the popular EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs. DragonFlyBSD HAMMER2 vs. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. I tested an XFS filesystem on an LVM physical volume vs. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. Although use of the Ext4 filesystem is one possibility for performance issues with MongoDB and WiredTiger (particularly under significant write load), there may be other issues affecting your use case. 61 CommentsIn some ways, btrfs simply seeks to supplant ext4, the default filesystem for most Linux distributions. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. but rather comparable to the usage of md-raid underneath or LVM. See Sysctl#Virtual memory for details. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. e. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. Btrfs is one of the most. 2) (surprisingly, the loopback benchmark looks better than the raw-disk benchmark, presumably because of the smaller size of the loopback device, thus less time is spent on the actual sync-to-disk) Benchmark setupDependending on the hardware, ext4 will generally have a bit better performance. 15 kernel was unchanged compared to Linux 3. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 file system variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. But time is going, and the. Whether for enterprise data centers or personal purposes, choosing the best file system will depend on the amount of data and setup requirements. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. A 3TB / volume and the software in /opt routinely chews up disk space. Tips: You can mention users to notify them: @username You can use Markdown to format your question. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. The PowerEdge-server operating system is currently Fedora 11 (64-bit. Try to reformat that partition with the smallest block size: mkfs. Btrfs is a big leap past ext4 and XFS because it supports features such as: Copy-on-write; Subvolumes, snapshots, and rollbacks; Online defragmentationFollowing the recent Btrfs RAID: Native vs. QCOW2 image file in a directory can do snapshots and thin provisioning. Sequential reads, however, were coming in slower. 1 / Windows 95 OSR2 (OEM Service Release 2) and then later in Windows 98. 2010’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. 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. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. The benchmarks suggest XFS is the fastest filesystem for SSDs. Btrfs came in a distant third place finish for performance from this single NVMe SSD drive benchmark followed by EXT4 and then NILFS2. 8. Btrfs is a bit slower with writes because of its Copy-on-write nature, but just as fast when it comes to reads. Downside is that it's a slower file system due to it's nature of redundancy. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. A conventional RAID array is a simple abstraction layer that sits between a filesystem and a set of disks. 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. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. This is the first time that the new EXT4 and Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems have been directly compared when it comes to their disk performance though the results may surprise. It is native. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). NTFS. 2070 tps). We were using the latest 2. exFAT vs NTFS. EXT4 run a lot slower when we perform same SQL insert test; XFS respond a lot healthier at 2K INSERT + 2K UPDATE while EXT4 only have 59 for both. Off a Linux 5. g. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash.