EXT4 vs XFS: large volumes with high-end RAID controller

Written by Gionatan Danti on . Posted in Linux & Unix

User Rating:  / 7
PoorBest 

Conclusions

Well, we are at the end.

Speaking about performances, it seems that the faster controller levels out many of the differences recorded in the previous benchmark run (the one with PERC H200 controller). EXT4 and XFS often performs the same or are within striking distance.

One notable exception is PostgreSQL: in at least one benchmark (pgbench) EXT4 shows a very strong win. So, if you plan to heavily use a PostgreSQL database, use EXT4 filesystem.

On the other hand, if you plan to use very big files and/or direct file I/O, XFS seems slightly better overall.

On all other cases, I think that the choice between EXT4 and XFS is largely indifferent, but EXT4 has a “black spot” that can not be ignored: when paired with this filesystem, Bonnie++ was able to bring down (multiple times) the entire machine. While EXT4 don't show any problem with the other tests, the Bonnie++ behavior is a very bad thing.

Also remember that EXT4 is currently officially limited to a maximum of 16 TiB (~17.5 TB) per volume: if you need a bigger volume, you had to go with XFS.

 

Feel free to contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to discuss this article.

Comments   

 
#1 Evgeny 2012-12-10 07:21
it's looks that you fsck time ext4 isn't true.
I think that you ran fsck.ext4 /dev/sd__something__
without "-f" key. It's means that fsck FS state
tune2fs -l
...
Filesystem state: clean
...
and if it clean do nothing
 

You have no rights to post comments