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