[Gluster-users] Why is xfs recommended?

Anders Blomdell anders.blomdell at control.lth.se
Wed Nov 12 08:41:17 UTC 2014

On 2014-11-12 05:54, Ravishankar N wrote:
> 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
I have seen weirdness with ext4 and replicated volumes, see thread
"[Gluster-devel] Duplicate entries and other weirdness in a 3*4 volume" 
started at 17 July.

Anders Blomdell                  Email: anders.blomdell at control.lth.se
Department of Automatic Control
Lund University                  Phone:    +46 46 222 4625
P.O. Box 118                     Fax:      +46 46 138118
SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list