1. Partitioning - improve performance, NTFS vs EXT4 will not gain you much if any better performance, it will allow you to use extra chars with files/folders naming and much bigger single file sizes. Provides good performance for many enterprise work load, and probably some desktop ones too. 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. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. It seems that the new file system may be applied more. 3. XFS allows multi-threaded concurrent journal commit while EXT4 has single threaded serial commit. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. 7 - Btrfs vs. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. Maybe adding Btrfs compression would be negligible outside of storage benchmarks. the fact that maximum cluster size of exFAT is 32MB while extends in ext4 can be as long as 128MB. List of archive formats. Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a. >if it will make any differences in the way XFS performs if its built directly on the disk, or built onto of a VMFS partition. Features of the XFS and ZFS. Short answer: under GNU/Linux, you should use a GNU/Linux native file system, such as ext4, XFS or btrfs, as your root partition, for stability and security. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. Windows users as well. 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. Btrfs vs. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Here are some of those XFS RAID benchmarks up against Btrfs and. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. 2, and 4. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. The 3 types of file systems support large file size and volume size. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. Data integrity protection. 0-050600-generic. The most commonly used are Ext4, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS which is the most recent file system released back in 2018. So I installed a new Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSD!! I previously had a Sandisk SSD formatted with ext4, just since it was the most stable (IMO) a few years back. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). F2FS vs. #filesystem #ext4 #xfs #linuxExplicación de las diferencias entre sistemas de archivos, en este vídeo se comparan los 2 mas usados en GNU/Linux. XFS was more fragile, but the issue seems to be fixed. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. For more examples see the Markdown Cheatsheet. ext4: 1 1 SMR. 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. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. Published very recently by Phoronix, a series of benchmark tests. Each of these file systems has its own way of organizing data, merits, and demerits. 0. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. Improve this answer. Btrfs native RAID was much faster for sequential writes than EXT4/XFS on Linux Software RAID. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. Which one brings the best performance in an EXT4 vs XFS standoff? Truth is, each ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, or EXT4 file system – to only name the most popular ones – has pros and cons. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. 3. Native file systems (e. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. All these benchmarks were carried out in a fully-automated and. ReiserFS: Highly optimal small-file access. Tested on the SSD were the popular EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. The one they your distribution recommends. 7. 6. The ext4 file system mainly enhances the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the Linux Kernel. read link below. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. however, since last few years we seriously. Here are my results. EXT4 performance is excellent. 1. Yes, both BTRFS and ZFS have advanced features that are missing in EXT4. brown2green. 41 Toshiba. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that helps you make an informed decision. How do the major file systems supported by Linux differ from each other?This would be an interesting test. AnthonyWC commented Dec 15, 2022. Btrfs is a bit slower with writes because of its Copy-on-write nature, but just as fast when it comes to reads. ext4 and also reiserfs store files in a different way. I use lvm snapshots only for the root partition (/var, /home and /boot are on a different partitions) and I have a pacman hook that does a snapshot when doing an upgrade, install or when removing packages (it takes about 2 seconds). Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. But if you're hoping to replace ZFS—or a more complex stack built on discrete RAID management, volume management, and simple. SQL Server supports both ext4 and XFS filesystems to host the database, transaction logs, and additional files such as checkpoint files for in-memory OLTP in SQL Server. After stepping through all pages in an article, it’d become apparent that each fs might perform better running certain tests. 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. I installed CentOS 6. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. It also had faster reads, though the differences were smaller. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. This enables extreme scalability of IO threads, filesystem bandwidth, file and filesystem size when spanning multiple storage devices. But yeah, it's (BTRFS) a more complex filesystem with a bottomless pit of asterisks and gotchas attached to it, EXT4 is much more limited in scope and much simpler from a design perspective. All these benchmarks were carried out in a fully-automated and. HDFS on ext3 has been publicly tested on the Yahoo cluster, which makes it the safest choice for the underlying file system. The problem (which i understand is fairly common) is that performance of a single NVMe drive on zfs vs ext4 is atrocious. I used a simplistic setup and an unfair benchmark which initially led to poor ZFS results. Btrfs lacks maturity and stability at the time of this writing but is more feature-rich compared to EXT4. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). F2FS vs. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. 4. Observations. 2. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. Btrfs, ZFS, and bcachefs are probably your best bets out of the 19 options considered. ) – improvements, bugfixes. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. 3. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. XFS also tended to perform well along with the seldom mentioned NILFS2. 1829 tps). Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. 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. XFS vs EXT4. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. 34, NO. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across. also, i've heard in some other posts about btrfs not having the best stability for sudden power loss. xfs: 0. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. Updating 1 million files takes ages. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. With the PostMark disk benchmark, XFS and Btrfs were slightly. Copy link Member. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. @Falzo said: I think in general the comparison is a bit. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. Here is a look at the Linux 5. 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. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. F2FS vs. 1, 4. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. EXT4 vs. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Here are some alternatives: XFS. MySQL Performance : XFS -vs- EXT4 Story. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. Various internet sources suggest that XFS is faster and better, but taking into account that they also suggest that EXT4 is. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs. The ext3 File. 6. First of all, some background history. 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. RAID Support. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. With the initial create test in the compile benchmark, the performance of ZFS was over 3. XFS tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. XFS scales much better on modern multi-threaded workloads. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. Januar 2020. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. These are some performance tests on a Infortrend EonStor RAID system, attached via a LSI22320RB-F scsi HBA card, also known as LSI22320-R. Utilice. ZFS is not yet ready. Raw-VM and Qcow2-VM Filesystem type: ext4. So its ext4. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. The conclusion for this Oracle SLOB test that uses 8Kb block size I/O is that XFS performs better than EXT4 under the exact same default configuration conditions – further, XFS is able to better utilize the CPU available to drive performance, due to the parallel I/O based on allocation groups. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. Each volume is like a single disk file. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. ext4 has better performance with large files. Differences Between Ext3/4 and XFS 4. I am leaning towards F2FS since its designed for flash memory, made by Samsung,. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. See below: XFSYou're welcome. 6. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. In conclusion, it is clear that xfs and zfs offer different advantages depending on the user’s needs. Data Colossi & Data Centers: Ext4 is non-negotiable for handling extensive data transactions. EXT4 vs. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. It was mature and robust. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. Taking the silver medal, ext3 impresses in the IOzone benchmark. EXT4 vs. See full list on linuxopsys. Which one brings the best performance in an EXT4 vs XFS standoff? Truth is, each ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, or EXT4 file system – to only name the most popular ones – has pros and cons. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. 6. 04, see mkfs. for the home lab you can use ext4 it is fast an flexible: grow and shrink are supported. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. Here are some more benchmarks. Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub . Migrating from ext4 to XFS" 3. 03. 对于一些文件系统如Ext4等，在硬盘格式化时就全部确定了，而对于XFS则是动态生成的，BtrfS则是更特别的动态实现。. XFS was surely a slow-FS on metadata operations, but it has been fixed recently as well. 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. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. BTRFS is basically the Linux version of ZFS (rather than just ZFS ported to Linux), but it still needs work around RAID. The primary difference between the two is that Ext4 is more suitable for smaller storage devices, while XFS is designed for larger storage capacities. Linux's Current File System. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. A Seagate FireCuda 520 PCIe 4. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. EDIT 1: Added that BTRFS is the default filesystem for Red Hat but only on Fedora. A word of warning about F2FS. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in Ubuntu 18. Server with complex storage needs including redundancy and you need high uptime, and you have the budget. If you are concerned about your data integrity, as you clearly are, then use ZFS. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. my nextcloud site). Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. 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. It appears that ZFS may be a viable option, but do bear in mind to disable compression and encryption as they may impact performance. being written when I compare the traces), when I look at a representative “same” action I see 5 ops on XFS…there are only 2 for the same action on EXT4. Você pode então configurar a aplicação de cotas usando uma opção de montagem. XFS uses one allocation group per file system with striping. 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. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. This is addressed in this knowledge base article; the main consideration for you will be the support levels available: Ext4 is supported up to 50TB, XFS up to 500TB. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. . 2020. XFS is widely adopted across the industry to run MySQL, but we were interested in looking at EXT4 performance as well. Si su aplicación falla con números de inodo grandes, monte el sistema de archivos XFS con la opción -o inode32 para imponer números de inodo inferiores a 232. That's disgusting enough for me not to want it. EXT4/XFS achieve higher throughput (~7. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. XFS had the best write performance by a significant margin with sequential writes up to 156 MB/s faster than EXT4. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. To achieve expected performance by tweaking the IRQ affinity, consider few important parameters like Linux handling of the server topology, NIC driver stack, default. 1. Btrfs uses a checksum to ensure that the data doesn’t corrupt, on the other hand, Ext4 doesn’t ensure data integrity. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. Q0heleth added community triage labels Feb 13, 2023. What we mean is that we need something like resize2fs (ext4) for enlarge or shrunk on the fly, and not required to use another filesystem to store the dump for the resizing. Offizieller Beitrag. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. When use btrfs it's 35-40 MB/s. If you have single vmdk on dedicated VMFS I wouldn't expect any difference compare to RDM. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. 0 while today is just a comparison of six file-systems using a traditional HDD. Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1) Id Fmt Data Metadt Rel_Perf 0 - 512 0 2 1. Replica set members can definitely use different filesystems -- members aren't even aware of what filesystems are in use by their peers. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. As far as I know, the 4k block size is important for such webgui, it makes it faster to open sites (for ex. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. Features of the XFS and ZFS. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. There are not three filesystem formats, but filesystem formats defined by a combination of features. 1. g. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. So logically, mainline Linux is more mature. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. We currently recommend XFS for production deployments. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. Recommended for general use. 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. how horrible XFS metadata performance was prior to delaylog than how much better than EXT4 it is today, though it is substantially better with greater parallelism. From the same system used as our. XFS scales better to extremely large file systems and high thread counts. The file-systems being benchmarked here are EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. As cotas XFS não são uma opção remountable. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. I chose two established journaling filesystems EXT4 and XFS two modern Copy on write systems that also feature inline compression ZFS and BTRFS and as a relative benchmark for the achievable compression SquashFS. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier=1. 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. . However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. 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. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. The test data shown in the graphs below show modest differences between both. Honestly I wasn't aware of the huge amount of extends still created - that explains a bit. XFS handles large files more efficiently while Ext4 performs better with large quantities of small files. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. As a long-used file system, ext4 is notable because it is proven to be reliable, capable, and high-performing. I used to format XFS using mkfs. For more comprehensive coverage of performance improvements relating to storage and file systems, refer. I chose two established journaling filesystems EXT4 and XFS two modern Copy on write systems that also feature inline compression ZFS and BTRFS and as a relative benchmark for the achievable compression SquashFS with LZMA. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. The PowerEdge-server operating system is currently Fedora 11 (64-bit. 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. Between 2T and 4T on a single disk, any of these would probably have similar performance. But I was more talking to the XFS vs EXT4 comparison. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device: It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. Because, firstly, it does not do data journalling or "ordered writing" and in a crash/reset you end up with random data (probably top secret files erased earlier) in your new files. XFS does not require extensive reading. while ext4/xfs/btrfs are rather classical filesystems as such (and might have their benefits or not) - ZFS is not. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. petronasAMG77 • 1 yr. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. A few days ago I ran some fresh hard drive file-system benchmarks on Linux 4. EXT / XFS similar behavior – mostly compromise between throughput and latency – EXT4 – higher throughput, more jitter – XFS – lower throughput, less jitter significant impact of “write barriers” – requires reliable drives / RAID controller with BBU minimal TRIM impact – depends on SSD model (different over-provisioning etc. try both and test the speeds for yourself. 3. 1. At 16 threads it was a draw (2036 tps vs. Una vez que hemos conocido las principales características de EXT4, vamos a hablar sobre Btrfs, el que se conoce como sucesor natural del sistema de archivos EXT4. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. But if you're hoping to replace ZFS—or a more complex stack built on discrete RAID management, volume management, and simple. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. what kind of improved performance do you get with these tweaks vs a vanilla EXT4? –. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. 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. It is faster with larger files. • 2 yr. Edit: fsdump / fsrestore means the corresponding system backup and restore to for that file system. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. So I think you should have no strong preference, except to consider what you are familiar with and what is best documented. Xfs is the default for redhat. It was first released in 2008 and serves as the successor to ext3. The smaller the block size (1024 bytes, p. Use the -L flag of mkfs. 2070 tps). Fast Transactions: XFS provides the benefits of a journaling file system without the hit to performance by leveraging tree structures for fast search and space allocations. Btrfs is one of the most. Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. It would be interesting to see a new benchmark result of CoW filesystems BTRFS vs ZFS in real world 2022. 1601 tps). Running on an x570 server board with Ryzen 5900X + 128GB of ECC RAM. This is the first time that the new EXT4 and Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems have been directly compared when it comes to their disk performance though the results may surprise. They’re fast and reliable journaled filesystems. If possible, use XFS as it generally performs better with MongoDB. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. It supports large file systems and provides excellent scalability and reliability. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. Whether for. EXT4 vs. So it could be a. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. A 3TB / volume and the software in /opt routinely chews up disk space. Note: Do not use mounted shared drives and any network file systems. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. The Ext4 File System. XFS vs. 88. In this case, Proxmox will not fully allocate the space so you get a thin provisioning region that it allocates chunks of for VMs (and then puts a file system on).