Take the 2-minute tour ×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was looking into some of the requirement, where huge amount of recursive files are written and deleted and looking forward if any FS (file system) as such gives advantage on others.

I am trying to research on "JFS" "BTRFS" "XFS" And "EXT4" in particular.

Here is some Benchmarking provided, on btrfs https://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/benchmark.html

Anyone that has relevent experience of use on identical situation or any feedback.

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by derobert, Braiam, slm, Ramesh, Mat Jun 23 at 18:23

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2  
This benchmark is old. It uses an ancient Kernel 2.6.21, doesn't compare ext4 and uses a very early btrfs implementation. I would expect btrfs being slower meanwhile due to more features and more error-checking. Get a recent benchmark or create one yourself. –  scai Jul 31 '12 at 13:41
    
Any particular suggestion from your experience on given context? –  tike Jul 31 '12 at 13:43
    
Sorry, no suggestions. –  scai Jul 31 '12 at 15:01
add comment

1 Answer 1

The entire filesystem game has changed significantly, from even a few years ago. Pragmatically speaking, most the old recommendations have become irrelevant.

You will need to check/perform more recent benchmarks, but the preferred choices have very much reduced.

For almost every conceivable situation, I would always prefer EXT4. this is only speaking today, brtfs might one day overtake EXT4.... just not currently. This is why I've come to this conclusion, in respect to the 'old recommendations'

BRTFS: Currently performs worse than EXT4, not enough real world verification IMO.

ResierFS: EXT4 has default B-tree's, it can optimally index many small files.

Reiser4: Removed from official Kernel, although does have compelling features. Future is still uncertain, more benchmarks/usage needs to be completed.

XFS: EXT4 now has extents, and dynamic inodes, usally matches or exceeds XFS performance. Not to mention, EXT4 has a superior recover/journal. It could be argued it's a wash, but then I'd still go EXT4, I only want to change from default when I have a compelling reason.

Mentioning JFS is relevant if your comparing to EXT3, today it's not really in the running. I know I will make the fanboyz completely nuts, but this is just my opinion. I will say I work as a Linux Systems admin, and this should explain my conclusion.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.