Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. Search Performance Test Btrfs Ext4 F2fs And Xfs On Linuxtrade goods, offerings, and more in your community area. ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging. 7 max 97. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. you can chroot, but you won't really have a performance issue with the native WSL drive. I would recommend choosing between ext4 and xfs filesystems. 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. ) – depends on how full the SSD isSadly XFS is not as as efficient with tiny files as other filesystems but the advantage make it come out ahead anyway. In a significant data corruption, Ext2 and Ext3 file systems are more possible and easy to recover data due to their data redundancy compared with Ext4. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. というのをベースにするとXFSが良い。 一般的にlinuxのブロックサイズは4kなので、xfsのほうが良さそう。 MySQLでページサイズ大きめならext4でもよい。xfsだとブロックサイズが大きくなるにつれて遅くなってる傾向が見える。ext4. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. Overall, except for application launch time, benchmark results show that ZFS is the slowest file system in terms of read and write speed due to its COW operating type, while EXT4 is usually the fastest system. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. . Most versions of desktop Linux (known as distributions, or "distros" for short) default to the ext4 file system. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. Each volume is like a single disk file. EXT4 being the “safer” choice of the two, it is by the most commonly used FS in linux based systems, and most applications are developed and tested on EXT4. 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. also, i've heard in some other posts about btrfs not having the best stability for sudden power loss. 68x faster than UFS+J. xfs -l size=64m (notes fromHas anyone compared the IO performance of WSL2 "emulated disk" vs a bare physical disk from wsl --mount --bare ? (Is there any comparison of ext4 vs XFS vs ZFS? I will run fio myself but I'd like to compare benchmarks to avoid wasting too much time). Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. 6. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. 7 - EXT4 vs. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. 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. From what I read. If you end up increasing the size of the box then it's going to become more relevant. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. A 3TB / volume and the software in /opt routinely chews up disk space. 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. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. I use Warp and mc support perf for benchmark. The ext4 file system may have potential data loss issues with default options because of the "delayed writes" feature. Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. F2FS vs. 0 while today is just a comparison of six file-systems using a traditional HDD. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. There are not three filesystem formats, but filesystem formats defined by a combination of features. 7. A few days ago I ran some fresh hard drive file-system benchmarks on Linux 4. 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 files The question is XFS vs EXT4. 64-Bit Support 2. The presented results were obtained by testing the performance ext4, xfs. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. The only case where XFS is slower is when creating/deleting a lot of small files. We recommend EXT4 or XFS. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. The benchmarks in this article are looking at the EXT4 / Btrfs / XFS / F2FS file-systems under the Linux 4. However, Linux limits ZFS file system capacity to 16 tebibytes. With Btrfs you get self healing, snapshots, copy on write, background file system checks, online defragmentation, and much more. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. Although Btrfs lacks stability and maturity as of this writing, it is more feature-rich than EXT4 despite this. To. In practice, it does not become a problem since it only occurs if remaining space is only a few blocks. Btrfs native RAID was much faster for sequential writes than EXT4/XFS on Linux Software RAID. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. Recommended for general use. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. btrfs: 1. If you think that you need. After a week of testing Btrfs on my laptop, I can conclude that there is a noticeable performance penalty vs Ext4 or XFS. I've built many (and maintain a number of) ZFS hosts with very large filesystems / databases. Built By the Slant team. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. g. 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. I've done a good bit of Kernel dev for Android. If you have single vmdk on dedicated VMFS I wouldn't expect any difference compare to RDM. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Given. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. 24. Primitives for freezing and unfreezing the filesystem for dumping. And you might just as well use EXT4. If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. The one they your distribution recommends. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. XFS uses the copy of the update for journal commit while EXT4 uses the original page cache entry for journal com-mit. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. . XFS (2002) – originally SGI Irix 5. But time is going, and the. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Ext4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Here are some of those XFS RAID benchmarks up against Btrfs and. 3. 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. Small_Light_9964 • 1 yr. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. If you have a NAS or Home server, BTRFS or XFS can offer benefits but then you'll have to do some extensive reading first. 17 Storage. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. The maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. - Linux Kernel 5. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. If possible, use XFS as it generally performs better with MongoDB. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. How do the major file systems supported by Linux differ from each other?This would be an interesting test. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs. With the WiredTiger storage engine, using XFS is strongly recommended for data bearing nodes to avoid performance issues that may. ZFS 101—Understanding ZFS storage and performance. ext4 is still a good filesystem, since it is rock stable and easy to recover from a crash. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. XFS is obviously still a good choice despite its age. Performance of the FS usually only matters for some very specific corner cases like high performance databases, huge storage systems or whatnot. NTFS. XFS does not require extensive reading. 0. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. 또한 ext3. The ext4 file system mainly enhances the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the Linux Kernel. Stripe size and width. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. A word of warning about F2FS. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. Features of the XFS and ZFS. 8. Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. 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. 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. 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. 21 merge window (now known as Linux 5. • 2 yr. 8 release), there was also some interest by readers in seeing some XFS RAID tests side-by-side. 2. First, btrfs is a perfectly cromulent single-disk ext4 replacement. 74 SMR. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. 1 Answer. It supports large file systems and provides excellent scalability and reliability. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. Which is the winner in a ZFS vs BTRFS scenario? Which one brings the best performance in an EXT4 vs XFS standoff? Truth is, each ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, or EXT4. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. EXT4 vs. In. There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. 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. 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. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. XFS . 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). Performance numbers shows that the XFS filesystem handles sequential writes better than the EXT4 filesystem for block sizes 256B, 4KiB, and 8KiB. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. It is native. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24: Reiser4 File-System Benchmarks With Linux 4. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. F2FS vs. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. ) – improvements, bugfixes. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Ext3:according to some benchmark charts i've seen, btrfs has measurably worse performance than ext4. From what I read. On the other hand, EXT4 handled contended file locks about 30%. 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. 6. Copy link Member. As for performance, given sufficient RAM ZFS performance for me is anywhere from close to ext4 to surpassing ext4, depending on memory, available pool space, and compressibility of data. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. XFS will generally have better allocation group. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 6. But if you're hoping to replace ZFS—or a more complex stack built on discrete RAID management, volume management, and simple. ext4 to specify a file system label. The last time I benchmarked them they were very close, with some differences for specific circumstances: XFS open() and readdir() remained fast as the number of files in a directory grew very large (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) whereas EXT4 performance degraded. 8 testing. Now there are a few others that are really interesting for SSD/NVMe, such as F2FS, XFS, etc. This of course comes at the cost of not having many important features that ZFS provides. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. Furthermore, the Ext4 is designed to be backward compatible. It is faster with larger files. First, btrfs is a perfectly cromulent single-disk ext4 replacement. e. 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. 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). On the SSD, Bcachefs came in behind EXT4 again but faster than Btrfs while XFS and F2FS were the fastest for SQLite on this consumer-grade SATA SSD. 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. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. XFS vs. 4% utilization. HDFS on ext3 has been publicly tested on the Yahoo cluster, which makes it the safest choice for the underlying file system. ago. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. ), the better for efficient disk usage, in case there's a lot of small files on that partition. ext3 is the most common format. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. 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. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. Ext4 is the evolution of the most used Linux filesystem, Ext3. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. It is suitable for PC platforms and. 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. Performance numbers shows that the XFS filesystem handles sequential writes better than the EXT4 filesystem for block sizes 256B, 4KiB, and 8KiB. 15 kernel was unchanged compared to Linux 3. 9: “ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads”. misleading. The system was set for Performance; whatever energy saving features I could find in the BIOS were turned off. F2FS vs. Ext4 is also a more traditional file system, while XFS provides more scalability and is better suited for large file systems. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. 3. Updating 1 million files takes ages. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. Some like zfs. 1. Packs several small files into same blocks, conserving filesystem space. (Obviously we can't use Stratis itself unless it supports a mode that accounts for the top layer being controlled by domUs. XFS is the default FS on RHEL and several Red Hat engineers work full time on it. Ext4 seems better suited for lower-spec configurations although it will work just fine on faster ones as well, and performance-wise still better than btrfs in most cases. Le système de fichiers ext4 est toujours pris en charge par Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 et peut être sélectionné au moment de l'installation. Hello everyone, The time has come again for me to reinstall arch once more. 2070 tps). Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. EXT4 vs. But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. 3. We believe that btrfs has the correct feature set and roadmap to serve Ceph in the long-term, but. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash. resource utilization; finally, the impact of. 14 stable, now it's time to do a Linux 3. . If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. 2. which btw you should put in here then as well. To be clear, this is not always the case, so it’s important to test both filesystems in your specific. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. 5. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. 1. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. 0 also used ext4. When taking the geometric mean of all the test results, XFS was the fastest while F2FS delivered 95% the performance of XFS for this modern flash-optimized file-system. AnthonyWC commented Dec 15, 2022. >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. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. exFAT vs NTFS. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. Given Canonical has brought. Share. 1. 6. . 7. Both VM’s are on a XFS based filesystem on the hypervisor. 3. To be honest I'm a little surprised how well Ext4 compared with exFAT ^_^. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. 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. Both systems offer comparable safeguards against illegal access and malware strikes. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24 ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. VM Memory and VCPU: Both VM’s have 2GB RAM and 1 VCPU of the same speed. "EXT4 does not support concurrent writes, XFS does" (But) EXT4 is more "mainline"Further Reading. I was aware that ext4 as a extension of ext3 as an continuation of ext2 has a lot of legacie structures and thus also more likely a higher overhead. btrfs: 1. I'll have out our usual file-system/kernel comparison out soon from an SSD in looking at Btrfs/XFS/EXT4/F2FS between Linux 3. 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. 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 realistic one. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. . 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. See Swap#Performance. EXT4 vs. 04, see mkfs. The per-second throughput varies roughly between 5k and 9k tps—not great, not terrible. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. 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. XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. Finally, at last, ZFS managed to outperform both EXT4 and Ubuntu. 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. If you found this article helpful then do click on 👏 the button and also feel. ntfs support would too, and would avoid the 4 gig file size limit, and limit of disk partitions over 32gig that fat32 doesn't support. 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. As you can imagine there is not a single and. Swap space. Comparison of archive formats. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. 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). doc_willis • 2 yr. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. El ext4 y xf. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. xfs: 0. The primary difference between the two is that Ext4 is more suitable for smaller storage devices, while XFS is designed for larger storage capacities. While looking at the filesystem options it seems like BTRFS is a lot more stable than it was the last time I had to install arch so now I am seriously considering using it. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. Linux 4. brown2green. There was a higher risk than upon disconnection or loss of power than some of the files are truncated. With a throughput of around 2,026 MB/s the XFS filesystem seems to offer the best writing speed. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. Earlier this month were the FreeBSD ZFS vs. 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. very fast directory search. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. Here are some alternatives: XFS. Here are my results. Btrfs was developed specifically to facilitate quick administration and maintenance. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. As a DBA, this is what you want to see on your systems—minimum differences (jitter) during the whole benchmark run. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. If you dig in to its history, you will see SGI was famous for workstations designed for audio and video editing. XFS scales better to extremely large file systems and high thread counts. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. EXT4: 2. 8 snapshot as of last week. 34, NO. Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. Here is a look at the Linux 5. It scales with a number of controller replicas, which can bring extra. Snapshots, transparent compression and quite importantly blocklevel checksums. 0 mainline kernel and using. The following table summarizes the key performance differences:Funny you mention the lack of planning. It turned out that XFS is slow with many small files - you should not use it for this use case. An external ext4 disk, mounted by WSL2 as a bare drive is for all intents and purposes a. As cotas XFS não são uma opção remountable. I developed an application recently and compared the I/O performance of both and found ext4 to be slightly quicker for my application which was really just opening and reading whole files into memory. This includes workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread. advantages. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5.