4 ms·
Doubtful. Although they've both improved over the years, the conventional wisdom was that XFS' benefits were seen on very large volumes, and ext4 was more effic
by seabrookmx 3y ago
Doubtful. Although they've both improved over the years, the conventional wisdom was that XFS' benefits were seen on very large volumes, and ext4 was more efficient for small reads/writes and metadata operations. This explains why XFS is more niche now that btrfs and zfs are around.
RHEL is the only distro I know that defaults to XFS.
- kelnos 3y agoHow large is "very large", though, and has that changed with time? The last time I used XFS, I would have considered 500GB to be pretty large. Nowadays that's kinda mediocre. I have a 24TB RAID5 that's still on ext4 though; I imagine that qualifies as at least "fairly large"?
- DiabloD3 3y agoThe last time I had to participate in a RHEL install, the installer would do ext4 if <16TB, xfs if >16TB. I find this size unusually arbitrary, but I suspect Red Hat found unwanted behavior in some ext related code. This was after the known issue in e2fsprogs that was fixed around a decade ago preventing fscking of >16TB; RHEL of a decade ago was either "xfs by default" or "xfs if >2TB" or similar, and the installer clearly changed since then. Casual Googling also says my experience with "RHEL says XFS > 16TB" is out of date, and its now "XFS > 100TB". And like, look, if you're doing 100TB, use ZFS, stop fucking around and do it right.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoXFS has been the default for everything since RHEL7 IIRC (the smallest disk I tried was something like 5 GBs).