I've read that EXT4 beats XFS if you have dozens of threads doing I/O simulataneously, but if it's a application with just a few threads, ( say a database ) then XFS is faster. Basically, LVM with XFS and swap. F2FS vs. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. But btrfs also aims to provide next-gen features that break the. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example:For this round of testing on a Dell PowerEdge server with dual EPYC 7601 processors were using four Samsung 860 EVO SATA 3. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. RAID Support. These are some performance tests on a Infortrend EonStor RAID system, attached via a LSI22320RB-F scsi HBA card, also known as LSI22320-R. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. Compared to Ext4, XFS has a relatively poor performance for single threaded, metadata-intensive workloads. The way you describe this workload, I think it is not very demanding. If you want to see how Bcachefs compares to. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033-2EE) hard drives and the. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. 5k tps vs. XFS vs EXT4!This is a very common question when it comes to Linux filesystems and if you’re looking for the difference between XFS and EXT4, here is a quick summary:. LVM2 is a logical volume manager that creates something like a disk partition which you then format with a file system. You can, however, still use NTFS for storing non-OS and application-related files. As you can imagine there is not a single and. English Table of Contents Types of File Systems Local File Systems Overview The XFS File System The Ext File System Family Ext4 File System Choosing a Local File System. I'm not sure if most are aware but Android is now using F2FS as the new filesystem type for the data partition instead of EXT4 after Google extensively tested the performance improvements and flash storage wear performance. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. Copy link Member. Linux 5. EXT4 is a legacy file system, and Btrfs represents future developments in the Linux space. 1. ZFS, Tux3, and Reiser4 weren't tested in. 8 testing. It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. When XFS was designed, “high performance” meant a. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. XFS scales much better on modern multi-threaded workloads. doc_willis • 2 yr. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. XFS. Native file systems (e. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. Whether for. Choosing the correct file system to use on a NAS server is a very important decision, depending on the use that we are going to give it, we can choose one file system or another, since it could provide us with higher performance, better data integrity and Other features. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. TrueOS ZoF vs. To be clear, this is not always the case, so it’s important to test both filesystems in your specific. Some like zfs. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. The test results show that the Galaxy Note 10 performs better than the one plus 7 Pro in terms of random and SQLite write speed. 8 release), there was also some interest by readers in seeing some XFS RAID tests side-by-side. 0 while today is just a comparison of six file-systems using a traditional HDD. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. • A specification for accessing solid-state drives (SSDs) attached through the PCI Express (PCIe) bus. Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub . file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. resource utilization; finally, the impact of. the COW which saves alot of space and increases the speed. > I’m a blockquote. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. 3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" Collapse section "2. 3. 3. Recent improvements to the XFS file system have shown it to have the better performance characteristics for Kafka’s workload without any compromise in stability. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. I installed CentOS 6. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. There are several benchmarks online attempting to compare XFS to ext4 with various RDBMS platforms and tools. The problem with delayed allocation is data security. Having this opportunity I wanted to put some hard numbers to my previous observations regarding ext4 vs Btrfs performance on my T430 running Qubes OS R4. All of these Linux. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. I used to format XFS using mkfs. try both and test the speeds for yourself. Ext4 provides more flexibility in terms of data storage. ZFS's biggest disadvantage in my opinion is memory usage: If you have less than 16 GiB of RAM for a production server, you may want to. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger filesExt4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. Btrfs vs Ext4. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. The test data shown in the graphs below show modest differences between both. )It uses a default file system for Linux distribution, including Debian and Ubuntu. Depending on the space in question, I typically end up using both ext4 (on lvm/mdadm) and zfs (directly over raw disks). File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Btrfs on SSD, XFS on HDD. XFS provides a more efficient data organization system with higher performance capabilities but less reliability than ZFS, which offers improved accessibility as well as greater levels of data integrity. It is strongly recommended not to reshape the raid; creating a new array with the same number of data disks and adding that with LVM. First of all, some background history. Ext4 is probably the final evolution of the ext filesystem (which started with ext, then ext2, ext3, and now ext4). 03. Btrfs was edging ahead of XFS and Btrfs with the IOzone write test although the performance on the Linux 3. EXT4 vs. . F2FS vs. Btrfs vs. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. 5. Unfortunately Synology uses ext4 and btrfs; no support for xfs out of the box. Neither file system consistently outperforms the other in all workloads. Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 file system variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. 10 of the mainline Linux kernel, the design of the XFS file system always ensures durability. Recommended for general use. XFS also consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then the Ext3 or Ext4 variants will be. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. EXT4: 2. As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. For really big data, you’d probably end up looking at shared storage, which by default means GFS2 on RHEL 7, except that for Hadoop you’d use HDFS or GlusterFS. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. Sure the snapshot creation and rollback ist faster with btrfs but with ext4 on lvm you have a faster filesystem. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. 另外，我们常说的file对象，它用于关联进程和dentry对象的. It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). Generally NAS server operating systems like QNAP, Asustor or Synology. ZFS meanwhile still handily beat out the UFS competition -- the Sun/Oracle ZFS was 53% faster than UFS+S and an impressive 2. For this reason, I took the time to extend the same benchmark to Oracle ASM (Automatic Storage Management) and also to Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL). After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. ext4. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. 14 file-system performance comparison with a traditional hard drive. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. • 2 yr. Btrfs is a bit slower with writes because of its Copy-on-write nature, but just as fast when it comes to reads. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. 7. When I write (something like dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=512k count=20000 conv=fdatasync,fsync) and watch the system using iostats, I see that both BTRFS and EXT4 are writing at approximately the same. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. Tips: You can mention users to notify them: @username You can use Markdown to format your question. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. 2) (surprisingly, the loopback benchmark looks better than the raw-disk benchmark, presumably because of the smaller size of the loopback device, thus less time is spent on the actual sync-to-disk) Benchmark setupDependending on the hardware, ext4 will generally have a bit better performance. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. Edit: fsdump / fsrestore means the corresponding system backup and restore to for that file system. So it could be a. If you have a NAS or Home server, BTRFS or XFS can offer benefits but then you'll have to do some extensive reading first. advantages. Whether for enterprise data centers or personal purposes, choosing the best file system will depend on the amount of data and setup requirements. The Ext4 file system is a very old file system and it has been used on the Linux operating system for a long, long time. ext4 has dellayed allocation and it's better with small files, too. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. There are plenty of benefits for choosing XFS as a file system: XFS works extremely well with large files; XFS is known for its robustness and speed; XFS is particularly proficient at parallel input/output (I/O. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. On an ssd desktop you will NOT notice a difference in performance between ext4 and xfs. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier. which btw you should put in here then as well. xfs: 0. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . Hi folks, just wondering if anyone has experience with running clickhouse on ext4 vs xfs? And if there is any benchmark of ext4 vs xfs for clickhouse data volume? Specifically with high IOPS. XFS is a high-performance journaling file system created by Silicon Graphics, Inc. Storage. The BTRFS RAID is not difficult at all to create or problematic, but up until now, OMV does not support BTRFS RAID creation or management through the webGUI, so you have to use the terminal. Ticket Spinlocks. The benchmarks in this article are looking at the EXT4 / Btrfs / XFS / F2FS file-systems under the Linux 4. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. To. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. XFS uses one allocation group per file system with striping. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. In. XFS: Use the nobarrier mount option to disable barriers. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. Two of the most notable advances in this version are ext4 and XFS support. 1, 4. Both systems offer comparable safeguards against illegal access and malware strikes. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. 21 merge window (now known as Linux 5. So I did two rounds: the. read link below. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. Users should contemplate their. XFS is a robust and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files (scales to exabytes) and file systems on a single host. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. All these benchmarks were carried out in a fully-automated and. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. If you dig in to its history, you will see SGI was famous for workstations designed for audio and video editing. In the case of the Intel 900p SSD, the XFS results were too fast to accurately measure while EXT4 and F2FS took just two seconds to complete while Btrfs took six seconds. BTRFS is basically the Linux version of ZFS (rather than just ZFS ported to Linux), but it still needs work around RAID. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning. 14 stable, now it's time to do a Linux 3. List of archive formats. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. Conclusion. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. On the SSD, Bcachefs came in behind EXT4 again but faster than Btrfs while XFS and F2FS were the fastest for SQLite on this consumer-grade SATA SSD. The EXT4 f ile system is 48-bit with a maximum file size of 1 exbibyte, depending on the host operating system. DragonFlyBSD HAMMER2 vs. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. Btrfs came in a distant third place finish for performance from this single NVMe SSD drive benchmark followed by EXT4 and then NILFS2. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. 3 kernel releases. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. 7 - EXT4 vs. This enables extreme scalability of IO threads, filesystem bandwidth, file and filesystem size when spanning multiple storage devices. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. the fact that maximum cluster size of exFAT is 32MB while extends in ext4 can be as long as 128MB. This paper analyzes the performance of thee file systems in Linux environment. • Main goal of NVMe is to scale performance and standardize the PCIe SSD Interface • NVMe can be used as local storage or as cache for slower storage devices • Nvme performance: – File system: when compared to SAS SSD by 400% – Cache device: when compared to SAS 12Gpbs HDD by 450% (Read/Write) to 4702 % (Read) The XFS file system is an extension of the extent file system. In our experience Kafka is known to have index failures on such file systems. As cotas XFS não são uma opção remountable. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. 4 To 4. EXT4 vs. See Sysctl#Virtual memory for details. For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. Data integrity protection. XFS is a full 64-bit filesystem and in theory it is capable of handling filesystems as large as 8 Exabytes For Oracle Linux, we support up to 100TB. RHEL 7. Here is a look at the Linux 5. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. I just got my first home server thanks to a generous redditor, and I'm intending to run Proxmox on it. 7 Average speed : 87. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. The Infortrend RAID is a 24-disk box arranged as two RAID-6 arrays of 12 disks each, each disk 1 TB. See below: XFSYou're welcome. XFS is optimized for large file transfers and parallel I/O operations, while ext4 is optimized for general-purpose use with a focus on security. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. Latency for both XFS and EXT4. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. EXT4 vs. ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of subvolumes is nice too, rather than having to partition). Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following aspects: Larger Partition Size and File Size: Ext4 supports partition size up to 1 EiB and file. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. EXT4 vs. XFS is very well established and changing slowly, and the same can be said for EXT4. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. "Open-source" is the primary reason people pick Btrfs over the competition. Compared to XFS, Ext4 handles less file sizes for example maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. ) – depends on how full the SSD isSadly XFS is not as as efficient with tiny files as other filesystems but the advantage make it come out ahead anyway. Bcachefs in its current state was benchmarked against EXT4/XFS/Btrfs/F2FS/ZFS with each file-system being tested with its default mount options and done using an Intel Optane 900p 280GB NVMe solid-state drive. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. This time around, ext4 has managed > to get a significantly faster result than xfs. while ext4/xfs/btrfs are rather classical filesystems as such (and might have their benefits or not) - ZFS is not. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. F2FS vs. It seems that the new file system may be applied more. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. Using Btrfs, just expanding a zip file and trying to immediately enter that new expanded folder in Nautilus, I am presented with a “busy” spinning graphic as Nautilus is preparing to display the new folder contents. 7 - Btrfs vs. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. ZFS On Linux Benchmarks Storage : 2019-01-26: FreeBSD ZFS vs. It's a 64-bit, journaling filesystem that has been built into the Linux kernel since 2001 and offers high performance for large filesystems and high degrees of concurrency (i. So I think you should have no strong preference, except to consider what you are familiar with and what is best documented. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. As Microsoft makes more progress with ReFS on Windows 11, Linux is also getting performance optimizations and improvements on some of its major file systems, namely, F2FS, Btrfs, and EXT4. Now there are a few others that are really interesting for SSD/NVMe, such as F2FS, XFS, etc. EXT4 has been the Linux default since 2006, following the previous EXT3. Phoronix: Linux 4. If possible, use XFS as it generally performs better with MongoDB. Besides the XFS/EXT4/F2FS tests on the Western Digital hard drive, I also repeated the tests on a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SATA 3. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). I used to format XFS using mkfs. The server I'm working with is:2. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. XFS does not require extensive reading. And you might just as well use EXT4. 17 Storage. XFS will generally have better allocation group. Share. As for performance, given sufficient RAM ZFS performance for me is anywhere from close to ext4 to surpassing ext4, depending on memory, available pool space, and compressibility of data. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. 1. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. 0 and particularly with F2FS seeing fixes as a result of it being picked up by Google for support on Pixel devices, I was curious to see how the current popular. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. Vide. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. ext4 is still a good filesystem, since it is rock stable and easy to recover from a crash. 10 's new experimental ZFS desktop install option in opting for using ZFS On Linux in place of EXT4 as the root file-system, here are some quick benchmarks looking at the out-of-the-box performance of ZFS/ZoL vs. Ext4 파일 시스템. The Ext4 file system is mainly used on Linux, while the NTFS file system is commonly used on Windows, and the HFS+ file system is suitable for macOS. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. BTRFS vs EXT4 speed and compression. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. ext4, reiserfs etc. 18. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. Packs several small files into same blocks, conserving filesystem space. EXT4 and Btrfs tended to be the slowest by far for start-up times with these particular tests. Sequential reads, however, were coming in slower. 14 stable. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. 2. EXT4 vs. As far as I know, the 4k block size is important for such webgui, it makes it faster to open sites (for ex. Btrfs come with compression algorithms present in the filesystem, allowing data to be compressed at the filesystem level right when written to the system. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. F2FS vs. Both filesystems provide COW but XFS fragments less (and it's data cow only so no snapshots, only reflinks). XFS offers better disk space utilization than ext3 and has much quicker disk formatting times than ext3. Momentum. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. QCOW2 image file in a directory can do snapshots and thin provisioning. At 16 threads it was a draw (2036 tps vs. xfs(8) command. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. Btrfs vs. F2FS vs. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. micro server to make it worth it. XFS sort donc grand vainqueur de cette comparaison avec ext4, et je ne peux que vous encourager à l’utiliser si vous voulez exploiter la base LEGI. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. From what I read. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. If you plan to use it exclusively on Linux, stick with a Unix file system, such as XFS or EXT4. Here are some alternatives: XFS. Differences Between Ext3/4 and XFS 4. 4 usage of the XFS file system. The major difference between ext4 and XFS file systems is that the ext4 file system works better for fewer size files (single write/read thread) while the XFS works more efficiently. ZFS can complete volume-related tasks like managing tiered storage and. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. Linux 4. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. It provides an unlimited subdirectory. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Figure 3 - Using psync engine with FIO* tool. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in. See Swap#Performance. It started in 2016 from the patch that was pushed to kernel 4. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. EXT4 run a lot slower when we perform same SQL insert test; XFS respond a lot healthier at 2K INSERT + 2K UPDATE while EXT4 only have 59 for both. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. I developed an application recently and compared the I/O performance of both and found ext4 to be slightly quicker for my application which was really just opening and reading whole files into memory. . Performance numbers shows that the XFS filesystem handles sequential writes better than the EXT4 filesystem for block sizes 256B, 4KiB, and 8KiB. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. Most versions of desktop Linux (known as distributions, or "distros" for short) default to the ext4 file system. XFS had the best write performance by a significant margin with sequential writes up to 156 MB/s faster than EXT4.