[CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Sat Aug 4 15:21:05 UTC 2012
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 08/04/2012 09:36 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> thank you. very usefull
> i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
> i'll send you btrfs result for you.
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro> wrote:
>> On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
>>> thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
>>> but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true?
>>>> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
>>>>> hello
>>>>> i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
>>>>> i want to share it on network via nfs.
>>>>> which file system is better for it?
>>>>> thank you
>>>> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-)
>>>> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS
>>>> and
>>>> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora.
>>>> Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it
>>>> in some scenarios.
>>>> ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
>>>> testing.
>>>> If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
>>>> preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.

Personally, I would use ext4 ... faster is not always better.

As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system.  I would (and do) use that.  The 6.3 kernel does
support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
like tried and true over experimental.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20120804/6ea8ebf2/attachment-0004.sig>