[CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Wed Aug 8 13:17:34 UTC 2012
Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam at whitemice.org>

On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 10:21 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: 
> 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.

+1  ext4 is 'plenty good', bullet proof, and robustly supported.  

What ext4 suffers most from is hangover impressions of its quality that
have followed it from early ext3 [even later versions of ext3 were
considerably better than early ext3;  especially with the introduction
of dir_index that solved a lot of big-folders-are-very-slow problems].

ext4 uses extents, just like XFS.  It can pre-allocate just like XFS.
It does delated allocation, like XFS.

If you want really good performance than putting your journal external
to the filesystem, preferably on really fast storage, will probably help
more than anything else.  Certainly more than type-of-filesystem.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20120808/c27bf172/attachment-0004.sig>