For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. 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. On lower thread counts, it’s as much as 50% faster than EXT4. 2. 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. On an ssd desktop you will NOT notice a difference in performance between ext4 and xfs. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. Multimedia Sanctuaries: With large files as daily bread, ext4 is indispensable. 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. QCOW2 image file in a directory can do snapshots and thin provisioning. 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 vs. Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). 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 is optimized for large file transfers and parallel I/O operations, while ext4 is optimized for general-purpose use with a focus on security. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 3. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. The ext3 File. XFS . , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. ), the better for efficient disk usage, in case there's a lot of small files on that partition. Given. Phoronix: Linux 5. But btrfs also aims to provide next-gen features that break the. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. Depending on the space in question, I typically end up using both ext4 (on lvm/mdadm) and zfs (directly over raw disks). To achieve expected performance by tweaking the IRQ affinity, consider few important parameters like Linux handling of the server topology, NIC driver stack, default. 0-050600-generic. For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. e. 10 and 3. The mount command for ext4 has the "stripe" option. 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). 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. 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. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. XFS vs ext4 performanceHelpful? Please support me on Patreon: thanks & praise to God, and with thanks to the many. Great for gaming machines. 0 solid state drives using other file-systems -- including EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs with Linux 3. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. However, Linux limits ZFS file system capacity to 16 tebibytes. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. ext4 is still a good filesystem, since it is rock stable and easy to recover from a crash. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. : Some software uses /tmp for storing large amounts of small files. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. XFS is a robust and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files (scales to exabytes) and file systems on a single host. e2label can be used to change the label on an existing file system. From 4 - 80 TB pools. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). Abstract and Figures. 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. Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. e. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. As Microsoft makes more progress with ReFS on Windows 11, Linux is also getting performance optimizations and improvements on some of its major file systems, namely, F2FS, Btrfs, and EXT4. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. XFS was more fragile, but the issue seems to be fixed. 1 Answer. Both systems offer comparable safeguards against illegal access and malware strikes. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. EXT4 vs. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. ZFS has built-in RAID support with various RAID-Z levels (RAID-Z, RAID-Z2, and RAID-Z3). 3. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. checksum verification on each file. The XFS file system is an extension of the extent file system. Phoronix: Linux 5. XFS also tended to perform well along with the seldom mentioned NILFS2. Btrfs is one of the most. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. F2FS vs. XFS File System. 2. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. the fact that maximum cluster size of exFAT is 32MB while extends in ext4 can be as long as 128MB. 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. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. EXT4 is still getting quite critical fixes as it follows from commits at kernel. When a copy-on-write is needed, the driver searches through the image's layers to find the right file, starting from the topmost layer. Things like snapshots, copy-on-write, checksums and more. ext4 is the safe choice that almost anyone. This paper analyzes the performance of thee file systems in Linux environment. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. From what I read. From what I read. 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. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. 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. As a DBA, this is what you want to see on your systems—minimum differences (jitter) during the whole benchmark run. AFAIK conclusion 2 is true: ext2/ext3/ext4 are drivers that share a significant part of their code. XFS supports larger file sizes and. EDIT 1: Added that BTRFS is the default filesystem for Red Hat but only on Fedora. 1829 tps). Ext4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1) Id Fmt Data Metadt Rel_Perf 0 - 512 0 2 1. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. 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. 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. 6. The maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. 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. To organize that data, ZFS uses a flexible tree in which each new system is a child file of a previous system. Januar 2020. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. ago. It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). darkimmortal Member. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. 0, 82. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. #filesystem #ext4 #xfs #linuxExplicación de las diferencias entre sistemas de archivos, en este vídeo se comparan los 2 mas usados en GNU/Linux. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. SGI created XFS to handle huge files (xxx MB or more) very well. Btrfs native RAID was much faster for sequential writes than EXT4/XFS on Linux Software RAID. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. Share. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. 1, 4. F2FS vs. To. Try to reformat that partition with the smallest block size: mkfs. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Adding an LVM layer actually reduces performance a tiny bit. 36 0. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. A conventional RAID array is a simple abstraction layer that sits between a filesystem and a set of disks. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" 2. 1. It appears that ZFS may be a viable option, but do bear in mind to disable compression and encryption as they may impact performance. Ubuntu has used ext4 by default since 2009’s Karmic Koala release. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. 4 usage of the XFS file system. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. 3. BTRFS vs EXT4 speed and compression. e. 7 max 97. Over time, these two filesystems have grown to serve very similar needs. The fuse and fuseblk file system types are different from traditional file systems (e. 6. 61 CommentsIn some ways, btrfs simply seeks to supplant ext4, the default filesystem for most Linux distributions. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. With the PostMark disk benchmark, XFS and Btrfs were slightly. I would recommend choosing between ext4 and xfs filesystems. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. EXT4 performance is excellent. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. 8. 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. On SSDs and HDDs, it delivers fast atomic actions and stable values in the IOzone benchmark. ZFS is a single file system that creates sub-volumes when needed. Latency for both XFS and EXT4. If you found this article helpful then do click on 👏 the button and also feel. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". One of the biggest differences between them is that their supported operating system. No such built-in compression support is in Ext4. XFS is a high-performance journaling file system created by Silicon Graphics, Inc. List of archive formats. 4% utilization. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. 7 - EXT4 vs. ZFS allows users to move these files anywhere and even to attach them to the ZFS on. Btrfs on SSD, XFS on HDD. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. First of all, some background history. Ability to shrink filesystem. IMO XFS and F2FS seem like good choices for the most performance (F2FS was designed for SSDs). Btrfs come with compression algorithms present in the filesystem, allowing data to be compressed at the filesystem level right when written to the 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. Yes you have miss a lot of points: - btrfs is not integrated in the PMX web interface (for many good reasons ) - btrfs develop path is very slow with less developers compares with zfs (see yourself how many updates do you have in the last year for zfs and for btrfs) - zfs is cross platform (linux, bsd, unix) but btrfs is only running on linux. 7 - EXT4 vs. which btw you should put in here then as well. F2FS vs. 2010’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. EXT4 vs. Provides good performance for many enterprise work load, and probably some desktop ones too. at least thin-LVM as storage type is something that people might use to provide the guests. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. 0 500GB drives for conducting these fresh solid-state drive RAID benchmarks. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. With the same benchmark, very favorable to XFS, I added a ZFS L2ARC and that completely reversed the situation, more than tripling the ZFS results,. Given the reignited discussions this week over Btrfs file-system performance stemming from a proposal to switch Fedora on the desktop to using Btrfs, here are some. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. 19 and Linux 4. 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. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. g. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. EXT4 led with RAID0 benchmarks when running the PostgreSQL server though the XFS tests had some. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. It is suitable for PC platforms and. ZFS is much more complex than XFS and EXT4 but, that also means it has more tunables/options. 2. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. for data security and integrity zfs is the best. Two of the most notable advances in this version are ext4 and XFS support. For the most. 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. The major difference between ext4 and XFS file systems is that the ext4 file system works better for fewer size files (single write/read thread) while the XFS works more efficiently. I used to format XFS using mkfs. for the home lab you can use ext4 it is fast an flexible: grow and shrink are supported. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. As long as filesystem journaling is concerned, XFS adopts far more so-04-22-2016 02:13 AM. An external ext4 disk, mounted by WSL2 as a bare drive is for all intents and purposes a. an XFS filesystem on a straight disk partition. 5. 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. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . Unfortunately Synology uses ext4 and btrfs; no support for xfs out of the box. 38 We see that on the SMR disk btrfs has most of the advantage on overall ops that it has on ext4, but. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. Generally NAS server operating systems like QNAP, Asustor or Synology. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. 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. 79 1. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. IOSTAT also showing EXT4 was at 98. 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. In practice, it does not become a problem since it only occurs if remaining space is only a few blocks. However, LVM can provide great performance as well, especially when used with specific (good-performing) filesystems like XFS or Ext4. Use the -L flag of mkfs. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. But time is going, and the. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. If you're on HDD and you need the ability to shrink the fs, then use EXT4, but you lose any COW benefits. 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. A word of warning about F2FS. 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 seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. Here are my results. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. . 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. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. MySQL Performance : XFS -vs- EXT4 Story. 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. very fast directory search. 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. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. If Btrfs and EXT4 aren’t cutting it for you or aren’t supported by your choice of distro, there are a few other popular choices for file systems. Data Colossi & Data Centers: Ext4 is non-negotiable for handling extensive data transactions. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. I just got my first home server thanks to a generous redditor, and I'm intending to run Proxmox on it. Both ext4 and XFS should be able to handle it. I’m a blockquote. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. ZFS 101—Understanding ZFS storage and performance. Updating 1 million files takes ages. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. In sequential read performance, Btrfs and Bcachefs were terribly slow on the HDD while on the SSD Bcachefs was the slowest, just behind XFS while Btrfs and F2FS were competing for the. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device:XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. EXT4 has entirely different design goals, none of which are data integrity. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). XFS is particularly proficient at parallel IO due to its allocation group based design. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. 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. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. Share. Btrfs' RAID on 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. If you use Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora Workstation, the installer defaults to ext4. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. Both VM’s are on a XFS based filesystem on the hypervisor. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 file system variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. Btrfs vs. XFS: Use the nobarrier mount option to disable barriers. It's only a way to reduce writings to the disk, as it's a slow operation, and to reduce disk fragmentation. Operating system: Raw-VM is Ubuntu 12. 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. Data integrity protection. If you want to see how Bcachefs compares to. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. For anything with higher. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. 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. 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. NILFS is especially designed for flash memory drives, but does not really. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. And you might just as well use EXT4. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning. The presented results were obtained by testing the performance ext4, xfs. xfs: 0. So syncing is a real pain process, for a week or more. Observations. XFS and EXT4 are common low-overhead / performance options, btrfs. Refer to corresponding file system page in case there were performance improvements instructions, e. g. À partir de Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" Collapse section "2. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. ZFS can complete volume-related tasks like managing tiered storage and. Comparison of file archivers. Performance of the FS usually only matters for some very specific corner cases like high performance databases, huge storage systems or whatnot. read link below. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. 但无论如何，各个文件系统都需要存储这三类信息，因为这是内核规定的（见下）。. RAID Support. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. In the case of the Intel 900p SSD, the XFS results were too fast to accurately measure while EXT4 and F2FS took just two seconds to complete while Btrfs took six seconds. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. If you are concerned about your data integrity, as you clearly are, then use ZFS. 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. 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. Btrfs uses a checksum to ensure that the data doesn’t corrupt, on the other hand, Ext4 doesn’t ensure data integrity. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. 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 tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. It started in 2016 from the patch that was pushed to kernel 4. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. Ability to create large volumes of up to 1 PB 1. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. We recommend btrfs for testing, development, and any non-critical deployments. Compared to Ext4, XFS has a relatively poor performance for single threaded, metadata-intensive workloads. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference Storage : 2019-04-24: FreeBSD ZFS vs. btrfs: 1. Xfs is the default for redhat. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. The system was set for Performance; whatever energy saving features I could find in the BIOS were turned off. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. XFS vs. 7.