3 ms·
I'll wait for more benchmarks to be certain but this database test of the 3.10 kernel (which 7 uses) of XFS vs EXT4 is not promising: http://openbenchmarking.o
by ck2 12y ago
I'll wait for more benchmarks to be certain but this database test of the 3.10 kernel (which 7 uses) of XFS vs EXT4 is not promising:
http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305166-UT-FILESYSTE20/fd501a41a2adcc643acc832de94444f9fd7d9678 http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305166-UT-FILESYSTE20/...
- Alupis 12y agoRHEL pretty much is the standard for enterprise-y distros. I'm pretty confident they weighed the XFS decision very heavily, and in the end chose it for good reason. In fact, here's an article on the SUSE blog from a year ago discussing why XFS is a great choice for enterprise: https://www.suse.com/communities/conversations/xfs-the-file-system-of-choice/ https://www.suse.com/communities/conversations/xfs-the-file-...
- jerven 12y agoA 160 GB disk is not a real comparison for enterprises. XFS really starts to perform better on disks 1Tb as well as 8 cores and above. EXT4 really starts to creak when moving to filesystems that are 16TB and above. Something that is going to be common in the 7 years that Cent-OS 7 is around. Of course with the amount of backports of patches that any RedHat kernel has the comparison to mainline version numbers is almost useless :( For my workload the performance difference is 15% better for XFS than EXT4 on the same 3Tb of SSD with the same workload.