4 ms·

(Pleasantly) surprised to see docker in there. Looking forward to 7 (although XFS by default got me wearing my best surprise! face).

sliverstorm 13y ago
XFS? Come again?
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  RHAT has stated that XFS will be the default filesystem in RHEL 7.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    No kidding. That's an interesting choice, I like XFS but it always seemed to be best on dedicated data storage volumes rather than root disks. Did they explain why?
oofabz 13y ago
Interesting. I've been using XFS only (even for /boot) for years and it's been completely reliable. I'm sure it will work well for them.
nnq 13y ago
Noob question here: what are the advantages of XFS over the more "default" Ext4 or the more "everything you might ever need" ZFS?
- Spidler 13y ago
  Scaling up in disk size, mostly.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Let Dave Chinner tell you: https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVideos/LCA2012-XFS_Recent_and_Future-Dave-Chinner.mp4 https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVide...
  - e40 13y ago
    Was hoping for something I could read rather than watch.
    - rodgerd 13y ago
      Try https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ then, which is a summary of Dave's talk on the state of XFS. The TL;DR version would be that XFS aims to be get out of your road and provide a big, fast pipe to make optimal use of your available hardware. It does not try to implement end-to-end checksumming, thin provisioning, RAID, data de-duplication, or other overhead. Dave makes the point that traditionally people characterised XFS as for very high-end workloads, but suggests that commodity hardware is now at the point (in terms of IOPS and transfer rates) that "high end" is now quite affordable, so you should consider it for workstations, laptops, etc. The XFS authors think it will remain a better choice for certain workloads, such as the modify-in-place work of databases, video editing, and so on, that copy-on-write filesystems like ZFS and btrfs.
- seefriek 13y ago
  XFS is better than ext4 when: 1) You need huge filesystems (like 100TB+). 2) You need huge numbers of files per directory (in particular, XFS is much faster at creating the files). 3) You have a workload heavily skewed toward streaming data off the disk. ZFS does 1 & 3 well. Not as good on 2. And it's less mature on Linux than the other 2. But ZFS also has much more robust data integrity feature than either ext4 or XFS. P.S. - I migrated most of my stuff from XFS to ZFS this year after many years of using XFS (back when IRIX was a thing). P.S.S. - Never run XFS without battery backup and make sure to force sync data to disk periodically.

sliverstorm 13y ago

XFS? Come again?

jlgaddis 13y ago
RHAT has stated that XFS will be the default filesystem in RHEL 7.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  No kidding. That's an interesting choice, I like XFS but it always seemed to be best on dedicated data storage volumes rather than root disks. Did they explain why?

oofabz 13y ago

Interesting. I've been using XFS only (even for /boot) for years and it's been completely reliable. I'm sure it will work well for them.

nnq 13y ago

Noob question here: what are the advantages of XFS over the more "default" Ext4 or the more "everything you might ever need" ZFS?

Spidler 13y ago
Scaling up in disk size, mostly.
rodgerd 13y ago
Let Dave Chinner tell you: https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVideos/LCA2012-XFS_Recent_and_Future-Dave-Chinner.mp4 https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVide...
- e40 13y ago
  Was hoping for something I could read rather than watch.
  - rodgerd 13y ago
    Try https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ then, which is a summary of Dave's talk on the state of XFS. The TL;DR version would be that XFS aims to be get out of your road and provide a big, fast pipe to make optimal use of your available hardware. It does not try to implement end-to-end checksumming, thin provisioning, RAID, data de-duplication, or other overhead. Dave makes the point that traditionally people characterised XFS as for very high-end workloads, but suggests that commodity hardware is now at the point (in terms of IOPS and transfer rates) that "high end" is now quite affordable, so you should consider it for workstations, laptops, etc. The XFS authors think it will remain a better choice for certain workloads, such as the modify-in-place work of databases, video editing, and so on, that copy-on-write filesystems like ZFS and btrfs.
seefriek 13y ago
XFS is better than ext4 when: 1) You need huge filesystems (like 100TB+). 2) You need huge numbers of files per directory (in particular, XFS is much faster at creating the files). 3) You have a workload heavily skewed toward streaming data off the disk. ZFS does 1 & 3 well. Not as good on 2. And it's less mature on Linux than the other 2. But ZFS also has much more robust data integrity feature than either ext4 or XFS. P.S. - I migrated most of my stuff from XFS to ZFS this year after many years of using XFS (back when IRIX was a thing). P.S.S. - Never run XFS without battery backup and make sure to force sync data to disk periodically.