On 10/23/2013 08:24 AM, David T-G wrote:
From what I can tell, XFS is a big contender, ReiserFS isn't bad, and Carlos can break pretty much everything:-) Barring more "XFS really is still slow" input, I think, at this point, that I'm going to lean toward XFS even though it's new to me, especially if I also give LVM a try and it does my mirroring so that I have the ability to break, reformat, transfer, and sync if I need a change (and, hey, manage volumes on the fly to tune their different purposes, too).
<- snip -> Coming in a bit late. I did benchmark XFS, EXT4 and btrfs recently for our application and found that XFS won. We're having to write binary data as quickly as possible to RAID filesystems exceeding 17-TB in size. The file sizes are all 4-GB. The data is coming from two optimized 1-Gig Ethernet (fiber) interfaces, so we don't have to read/write while collecting data. BTW, we're able to get continuous bandwidth of 1,900-Gbits/sec over the two interfaces. I don't have the numbers available now, but XFS was able to write to an 11-disk RAID-6 array that netted about 17-TB of space at a rate of about 1.6-GB/sec. EXT4 was a tiny bit faster, but it had more storage overhead. Btrfs completely failed at about 15-TB. So XFS won (again) for our job mix. Reiserfs wasn't considered here because it doesn't support partitions larger than 16-TB. FWIW, we've been using XFS on this project for seven years and I don't recall ever having a non-hardware related loss of data. We did have filesystem corruption caused by disk failures on JBOD drives without RAID protection, but no unclean shutdown loss of data. Tests were run on openSuSE 12.3 and 13.1-Beta1. (Yes, I did a bug report on the btrfs failure in 12.3 in July of this year, it's still there in 13.1-Beta1.) Regards, Lew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org