[Gluster-users] Why is xfs recommended?

Ravishankar N ravishankar at redhat.com
Wed Nov 12 04:54:34 UTC 2014

On 11/12/2014 03:21 AM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote:
> Just wondering about the usecases. In all my testing ext4 has been
> consistently faster for sustained and random read/writes on large files  (VM
> images).
> Tested with/without external ssd journals and caches.
XFS scales well when there is lot of meta data and multi-threaded I/O 
involved [1].
Choosing a file system is mostly about running the  kind of workload you 
would expect your system to see, with your hardware configuration and 
your version of the OS.  If ext4 gives you better performance when used 
as back end for gluster with your settings and workload, there shouldn't 
be any reason why you cannot go with it.

[1] http://xfs.org/images/d/d1/Xfs-scalability-lca2012.pdf
> nb. While you can use a external journal with xfs I found the support and
> tools for it too marginal to risk using. Unable to move, resize or remove the
> journal without manually editing the partition bytes, whereas ext4 has tune2fs
> for all of that. Plus builtin support for loading the journal via label or
> uuid.
> thanks,
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20141112/2dec999a/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list