[Gluster-users] Optimal XFS formatting?

Jeff Darcy jdarcy at redhat.com
Thu Oct 20 15:17:57 UTC 2011

On 10/20/2011 11:11 AM, Sabuj Pattanayek wrote:
> IIRC XFS also has long fsck times. I don't know of any fs's which
> don't, but I guess you've seen different behavior with respect to ext4
> vs xfs on that issue. One thing I like about XFS is the short mkfs
> time, on the order of a few seconds vs minutes or hours with EXT3/4
> for large fs's.

The issues with both random-access performance and fsck times vary a lot
according to *exactly* which version of each you're using.  I'm in the same
group as many of the developers for both, and those guys are very busy.  Last I
heard, the fsck time and memory requirements were pretty similar between the
two, and any version of XFS with delayed logging should be pretty competitive
with ext4 for random access or metadata-heavy workloads.  I don't even know if
that information is current any more, though.  As always, YMMV and test your
own workload.

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list