On Wednesday 23 October 2013, Greg Freemyer wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> wrote:
On 2013-10-23 12:59, David T-G wrote:
Any thoughts, shy of religious warfare, on the best FS to use for a
data
and archive server? [I promise this is it for me for today ;-]
XFS?
10 years ago I researched the same question and chose xfs. I've followed both xfs and ext3/ext4 development since then and would still pick xfs of the 2 (for the described workload).
XFS is _extremely_ slow when creating/deleting files, AFAIR something about factor 100! worse than the ext family. That's why I would not used it for (rsnapshot) backups and most other use cases. Also a few times xfs made me a lot trouble after power failures. So I can't confirm the reputed robustness of XFS. ext4 is not safe to be used as NFS server, at least the dir_index has to disabled. (Maybe this problem was fixed in recent kernels.) I've used reiserfs for everything for years without any problems. But since big kernel lock was removed I've found that it became slower and somehow unstable. BTRFS was still really unstable when I had tested it a few times. That's why I use ext4 currently (for NFS dir_index disabled). But I am not 100% happy with it. Online resizing is slow and I believe it's not as good as offline resizing. Also mkfs is very slow and inefficient when using sparse vm images. Moreover I don't like the inode limit. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org