On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 09:15 -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Almost every time I've tested performance for my workload of interest, XFS kicks the $#@)$ out of ext3
It is clearly a trade-off. E.g. XFS's lazy allocation causes less writes and less fragmentation. But in the event of a crash it is likely that you will lose more data on filesystems with a lot of variable data than ext3.
I've never completely understood RH's opposition to XFS. I've heard several stories -- the 4K stacks issue (which is a long way towards being resolved in recent kernels), support issues, etc. I almost wonder if it isn't a case of NIH.
I guess there are various reasons:
- 4K stacks were an issue at 4.0 time (maybe they still are, I don't know). - SELinux security labels cannot be stored with the default XFS inode size (of course, the inode size can be set when creating a filesystem) - XFS does not have data block journaling. - Do you want to support more than one file system, when you have a file system that is good enough?
-- Daniel