creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. So syncing is a real pain process, for a week or more. Migrating from ext4 to XFS" 3. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. User quotas for each shared folder. e. Abstract—The benchmark results for three most common file systems under Linux environment, ext4, xfs, and btrfs, used as guest file systems, were given in this paper. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. It scales with a number of controller replicas, which can bring extra. 7. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. ZFS can vary depending on your specific use case. EXT4 lacks more robust features but is stable and well-supported on all Linux operating systems. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. XFS supports larger file sizes and. But even with all of its features, it aims to offer XFS/EXT4-like performance, which is something that can't generally be said for Btrfs. If you're on HDD and you need the ability to shrink the fs, then use EXT4, but you lose any COW benefits. As of version 4. Memory requirement (even with dedup off) are (relatively) quite high. IMO XFS and F2FS seem like good choices for the most performance (F2FS was designed for SSDs). Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. 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. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. Mdadm comparison, the dual-HDD Btrfs RAID benchmarks, and four-SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Btrfs benchmarks are RAID Linux benchmarks on these four Intel SATA 3. I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. ext3/ext4: Use the barrier=0 mount option to disable barriers. I used a Dell R630 machine with two E5-2699 CPUs in it. Stripe size and width. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. 21 merge window (now known as Linux 5. XFS File. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. There are several benchmarks online attempting to compare XFS to ext4 with various RDBMS platforms and tools. while ext4/xfs/btrfs are rather classical filesystems as such (and might have their benefits or not) - ZFS is not. Perhaps most interesting from today's results were the startup-time application results where the Flash-Friendly File-System easily won across all of those. No such built-in compression support is in Ext4. Each of these file systems has its own way of organizing data, merits, and demerits. Ext4 file system is the successor to Ext3, and the mainstream file system under Linux. btrfs: 1. XFS vs. So it could be a. 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. advantages. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. 77. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. 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. Fragmentation issue 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 Network File Systems Shared Storage File Systems Choosing Between Network and Shared Storage File Systems Conclusion Linux 5. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1) Id Fmt Data Metadt Rel_Perf 0 - 512 0 2 1. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. 24. Here are some alternatives: XFS. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. 1 / Windows 95 OSR2 (OEM Service Release 2) and then later in Windows 98. I used hdparm and ran the following: sudo hdparm -Tt. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. 5. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. Btrfs with its copy-on-write behavior leads to it having a lot of features but at least in its out-of-the-box behavior generally being a fair amount slower than EXT4/F2FS/XFS. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. Storage. An external ext4 disk, mounted by WSL2 as a bare drive is for all intents and purposes a. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. why document recommend xfs? Should I use ext4? The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions. Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. 6. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. Ext4 파일 시스템. I've built many (and maintain a number of) ZFS hosts with very large filesystems / databases. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. 0 500GB drives for conducting these fresh solid-state drive RAID benchmarks. XFS File System. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. 1. 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. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. ext4 is not recommended. XFS handles large files more efficiently while Ext4 performs better with large quantities of small files. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. 2. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. A execução do comando quotacheck em um sistema de. EXT4 is still getting quite critical fixes as it follows from commits at kernel. AFAIK conclusion 2 is true: ext2/ext3/ext4 are drivers that share a significant part of their code. Share. 2. F2FS vs. To me this looks like the best option in terms of performance, though it doesn't appear to be a popular choice -- reading the documentation, as well as discussions in various threads here I only see most users debating about NFS vs SMB vs iSCSI. The only case where XFS is slower is when creating/deleting a lot of small files. HDFS on ext3 has been publicly tested on the Yahoo cluster, which makes it the safest choice for the underlying file system. XFS had the best write performance by a significant margin with sequential writes up to 156 MB/s faster than EXT4. 0 moved to XFS in 2014. The server I'm working with is:2. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). Each volume is like a single disk file. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. El sistema de archivos es mayor de 2 TiB con inodos de 512 bytes. I think in many ways btrfs is the better filesystem, but I seem to have noticed that it takes longer to copy data than on ext4. This paper analyzes the performance of thee file systems in Linux environment. All these benchmarks were carried out in a fully-automated and. 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. ZFS is a single file system that creates sub-volumes when needed. 5. So I think you should have no strong preference, except to consider what you are familiar with and what is best documented. Both cases, a mechanical drive. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. 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. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. Data integrity protection. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. e. 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. XFS vs ext4 performanceHelpful? Please support me on Patreon: thanks & praise to God, and with thanks to the many. darkimmortal Member. 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. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. The Infortrend RAID is a 24-disk box arranged as two RAID-6 arrays of 12 disks each, each disk 1 TB. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. Compared to Ext4, XFS has a relatively poor performance for single threaded, metadata-intensive workloads. 41 Toshiba. Whilst it supposedly has advantages for dealing with larger files, this for me has always been eclipsed by the fact that you can't shrink xfs file systems. e2label can be used to change the label on an existing file system. It provides near-native I/O performance even when the file system spans multiple storage devices. 2. F2FS vs. Here are the major feature of BTFS over ext4. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. 3 kernel releases. A Seagate FireCuda 520 PCIe 4. 3. 7 - Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. So its ext4. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. Btrfs, ZFS, and bcachefs are probably your best bets out of the 19 options considered. Larger files seem to be a problem. Beyond just testing the EXT4, Btrfs, and NILFS2 file-systems, we also threw in some results from EXT3 and XFS. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. 3 with zfs-2. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. However, to fully exploit ext4's performance capabilities, files need to be restructured to use the extents storage mechanism, which isn't done automatically during the conversion. With Dbench as well, XFS sees the largest drop in performance from KPTI and Retpoline support. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. I’m a blockquote. 1. XFS (2002) – originally SGI Irix 5. 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). In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. > I’m a blockquote. 98 Toshiba. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. 36 0. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. 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. Ext4 is the evolution of the most used Linux filesystem, Ext3. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. On lower thread counts, it’s as much as 50% faster than EXT4. Posted by Dimitri Kravtchuk on Wed 13 May 2020 20:15 UTC Tags: innodb, Benchmarks, xfs, ext4, MySQL, Performance, DoubleWrite. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. 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. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. 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. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. EXT4 and XFS both use efficient lookup methods for file names, but if you ever need to run tools over the directories such as ls or find you will be very glad to have the files in manageable chunks of 1,000 - 10,000 files. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. 3. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. 5k tps vs. also, i've heard in some other posts about btrfs not having the best stability for sudden power loss. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. The smaller the block size (1024 bytes, p. BTRFS vs EXT4 speed and compression. 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. Unfortunately Synology uses ext4 and btrfs; no support for xfs out of the box. 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). Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. The EXT4 f ile system is 48-bit with a maximum file size of 1 exbibyte, depending on the host operating system. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. IOSTAT also showing EXT4 was at 98. Btrfs on SSD, XFS on HDD. 2. NTFS Linux file-system benchmarks by Michael Larabel for a future article on Phoronix. . NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. Both filesystems provide COW but XFS fragments less (and it's data cow only so no snapshots, only reflinks). 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. 4% utilization. 7. XFS. 6. 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. Improve this answer. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. Notes[ edit] ^ IBM introduced JFS with the initial release of AIX OS/2 Warp. >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. 6. From the same system used as our. Writeback interval and buffer size. And you might just as well use EXT4. Generally, ZFS is known for its superior performance in large-scale storage environments, while Btrfs is more performant in smaller-scale deployments. 1. EXT4 is a legacy file system, and Btrfs represents future developments in the Linux space. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the > latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!파일시스템 비교 (ext4와 xfs) 7. Observations. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. See Swap#Performance. 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. However, to be honest, it’s not the best Linux file system comparing to other Linux file systems. Btrfs was developed specifically to facilitate quick administration and maintenance. . 4935 2026 MB/s. Refer to corresponding file system page in case there were performance improvements instructions, e. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. Phoronix: Linux 4. • PCIe SSD devices designed based on the NVMe specification are called NVMe-based PCIe SSD’s • Provides a scalable host controller interface for devices in various form. Built By the Slant team. 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. Here are my results. ago. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. Figure 3 - Using psync engine with FIO* tool. at least thin-LVM as storage type is something that people might use to provide the guests. ext4, reiserfs etc. Snapraid says if the disk size is below 16TB there are no limitations, if above 16TB the parity drive has to be XFS because the parity is a single file and EXT4 has a file size limit of 16TB. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. 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 is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. ) – improvements, bugfixes. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). XFS reportedly also has some data loss issues upon power failure. Cette section pointe les différences entre utiliser et administrer un système de fichiers XFS. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033-2EE) hard drives and the. XFS is a 64-bit journaling file system known for its high performance and efficient execution of parallel input/output (I/O) operations. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. NVMe drives formatted to 4096k. 2020. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. For storage, XFS is great and. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. F2FS vs. 0 mainline kernel and using. however, since last few years we seriously addressed the problems. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. 3. The host is proxmox 7. Picking a filesystem is not really relevant on a Desktop computer. As you can imagine there is not a single and. But time is going, and the. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. 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. El ext4 y xf. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. 7 Average speed : 87. 61 CommentsIn some ways, btrfs simply seeks to supplant ext4, the default filesystem for most Linux distributions. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. try both and test the speeds for yourself. Already have an account? Sign in to comment. 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. It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. 0 storage standard as the Galaxy Note 10, but the former uses the EXT4 file system instead of F2FS. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. Note: Do not use mounted shared drives and any network file systems. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. XFS: Use the nobarrier mount option to disable barriers. Improve this answer. SGI created XFS to handle huge files (xxx MB or more) very well. 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. XFS uses one allocation group per file system with striping. Kernel and File Systems. 2070 tps). Presently, Ext4 is the maintainer deployed in the Android OS. 7 - EXT4 vs. The 3 types of file systems support large file size and volume size. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. petronasAMG77 • 1 yr. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. doc_willis • 2 yr. After stepping through all pages in an article, it’d become apparent that each fs might perform better running certain tests. 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. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. The next subsections detail read workloads, write workloads, meta-data workloads, macro workloads, and the impact of performance vs. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. 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. Ext3 was mostly about adding journaling to Ext2, but Ext4 modifies important data structures of the filesystem such as the ones destined to store the file data. Small example: One plus 7 Pro has the same UFS 3. LVM adds another layer which definitely does not make it more reliable. The purpose of that patch was to help to improve read scalability in direct i/o mode. 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. micro server to make it worth it. Use the -L flag of mkfs. We use this almost exclusively where performance matters as the primary concern. Finally, at last, ZFS managed to outperform both EXT4 and Ubuntu. 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. RHEL 7. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. Copy link Member. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. Differences Between Ext3/4 and XFS 4. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. Through many years of development, it is one of the most stable file systems. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. With the CompileBench test, F2FS remains the fastest with EXT4, XFS, and F2FS seeing measurable drops in performance but the default Btrfs configuration was the slowest and did not see. 7. Recent File System Benchmarks - BTRFS XFX Ext4 F2FS. g. The primary difference between the two is that Ext4 is more suitable for smaller storage devices, while XFS is designed for larger storage capacities. The Ext4 File System. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. However, Linux limits ZFS file system capacity to 16 tebibytes. For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. the COW which saves alot of space and increases the speed. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. 6. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance. ago. Many benchmarks put EXT4 I/O a little ahead on BTRFS, but we are talking thousanth's of second here. It presents the. Ext4 is also a more traditional file system, while XFS provides more scalability and is better suited for large file systems. 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. Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance.