file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. 7. 2 SSD as yesterday's testing and using the same 4. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Adding an LVM layer actually reduces performance a tiny bit. 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. There was a higher risk than upon disconnection or loss of power than some of the files are truncated. Linux 4. XFS vs EXT4!This is a very common question when it comes to Linux filesystems and if you’re looking for the difference between XFS and EXT4, here is a quick summary:. Comparison of archive formats. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. I'm not sure if most are aware but Android is now using F2FS as the new filesystem type for the data partition instead of EXT4 after Google extensively tested the performance improvements and flash storage wear performance. ext4. Off a Linux 5. Abstract and Figures. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. NVMe drives formatted to 4096k. EXT4 vs. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. Sure the snapshot creation and rollback ist faster with btrfs but with ext4 on lvm you have a faster filesystem. IMO XFS and F2FS seem like good choices for the most performance (F2FS was designed for SSDs). 3. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. With a decent CPU transparent compression can even improve the performance. As you can imagine there is not a single and. Data integrity protection. Posted by Dimitri Kravtchuk on Wed 13 May 2020 20:15 UTC Tags: innodb, Benchmarks, xfs, ext4, MySQL, Performance, DoubleWrite. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. 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. Xfs is the default for redhat. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . Data Colossi & Data Centers: Ext4 is non-negotiable for handling extensive data transactions. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. 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 current popular. : Some software uses /tmp for storing large amounts of small files. 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. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. 7 - Btrfs vs. The fuse and fuseblk file system types are different from traditional file systems (e. 출처 : Red Hat CUSTOMER PORTAL. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. F2FS vs. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. 1829 tps). The file-systems being benchmarked here are EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. A conventional RAID array is a simple abstraction layer that sits between a filesystem and a set of disks. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. The ext4 file system may have potential data loss issues with default options because of the "delayed writes" feature. 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. A word of warning about F2FS. From this several things can be seen: The default compression of ZFS in this version is lz4. 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. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. 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. If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. ), the better for efficient disk usage, in case there's a lot of small files on that partition. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. Whether for enterprise data centers or personal purposes, choosing the best file system will depend on the amount of data and setup requirements. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). 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. 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. • 2 yr. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. EXT4 performance is excellent. 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. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. XFS vs Ext4. exFAT is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. 7 - EXT4 vs. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features like extent blocking mapping, dynamic allocation inode, and defragmentation. Januar 2020. Kernel and File Systems. À partir de Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It turned out that XFS is slow with many small files - you should not use it for this use case. XFS vs. 파일 시스템. Small example: One plus 7 Pro has the same UFS 3. If you use Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora Workstation, the installer defaults to ext4. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. The benchmarks in this article are looking at the EXT4 / Btrfs / XFS / F2FS file-systems under the Linux 4. It has proven itself over and over again across many terabytes and countless thousands (or perhaps millions) of files written on a wide variety of my HDDs and SSDs in various LUKS/LVM and non-LVM setups over the past decade. darkimmortal Member. To achieve expected performance by tweaking the IRQ affinity, consider few important parameters like Linux handling of the server topology, NIC driver stack, default. But I was more talking to the XFS vs EXT4 comparison. Conclusion. We may have lengthy talk on ext vs XFS vs f2fs and btrfs vs zfs and there are many more points to be mentioned, but for regular users. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. Over time, these two filesystems have grown to serve very similar needs. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. It can hold up to 1 billion terabytes of data. very fast directory search. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. Features of the XFS and ZFS. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. Two of the most notable advances in this version are ext4 and XFS support. 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. 3. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. 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. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. Phoronix: Linux 5. 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. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. ZFS meanwhile still handily beat out the UFS competition -- the Sun/Oracle ZFS was 53% faster than UFS+S and an impressive 2. I used a simplistic setup and an unfair benchmark which initially led to poor ZFS results. 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. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. 15 FS performance to Linux 3. As of version 4. Compared to Ext4, XFS has a relatively poor performance for single threaded, metadata-intensive workloads. Tenga en cuenta que el uso de inode32 no afecta a los inodos que ya están asignados con números de 64 bits. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. And you might just as well use EXT4. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. 3. 1601 tps). NTFS. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. 3. 1601 tps). However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features. Although use of the Ext4 filesystem is one possibility for performance issues with MongoDB and WiredTiger (particularly under significant write load), there may be other issues affecting your use case. 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. This includes workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. 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. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare. ext3/ext2 are not recommended due to fsync performance. 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. Already have an account? Sign in to comment. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. 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. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. One of the biggest differences between them is that their supported operating system. It is native. XFS was running the fastest with IOzone. For more examples see the Markdown Cheatsheet. 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. EXT4 vs. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. We recommend EXT4 or XFS. 3. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation of. 2. Now today I had a power outage on our office server and I discovered that one file on the JFS volume has been completely corrupted. 14 vs. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. From 4 - 80 TB pools. As a long-used file system, ext4 is notable because it is proven to be reliable, capable, and high-performing. 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. 86 1. . Re: Ext4 or Fat32 for hard drive? Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 am. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Generally NAS server operating systems like QNAP, Asustor or Synology. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. ext4 on the other hand has delayed allocation and a lot of other goodies that will make it more space efficient. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. 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. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. 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. 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. XFS scales better to extremely large file systems and high thread counts. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Both cases, a mechanical drive. xfs: 0. Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. It is destined to be replaced by Btrfs as the default Linux filesystem. The problem with delayed allocation is data security. F2FS vs. micro server to make it worth it. I used a Dell R630 machine with two E5-2699 CPUs in it. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. The ext3 File. The smaller the block size (1024 bytes, p. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. After stepping through all pages in an article, it’d become apparent that each fs might perform better running certain tests. 3. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. From the same system used as our. 0 500GB drives for conducting these fresh solid-state drive RAID benchmarks. The hard drive used for testing in this article was the Western Digital VelociRaptor. btrfs: 1. ZFS 101—Understanding ZFS storage and performance. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. 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. LVM2 is a logical volume manager that creates something like a disk partition which you then format with a file system. Stripe size and width. e. The regular XFS vs Ext4 benchmarks I'm seeing suggest it might be possible. Provides good performance for many enterprise work load, and probably some desktop ones too. We currently recommend XFS for production deployments. doc_willis • 2 yr. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. 8 release), there was also some interest by readers in seeing some XFS RAID tests side-by-side. EXT4/XFS achieve higher throughput (~7. 1. So logically, mainline Linux is more mature. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. EXT4 vs. Defaults: ext4 and XFS. Through many years of development, it is one of the most stable file systems. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. EXT4 vs. 7. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. The storage driver controls how images and containers are stored and managed on your Docker host. The performance of Btrfs vs. 19 and Linux 4. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. Sequential reads, however, were coming in slower. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. I've read that EXT4 beats XFS if you have dozens of threads doing I/O simulataneously, but if it's a application with just a few threads, ( say a database ) then XFS is faster. If you found this article helpful then do click on 👏 the button and also feel. The following table summarizes the key performance differences:Funny you mention the lack of planning. I will use Ext4 until something more viable with at least the same level of stability takes its place. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. 24 0. - Linux Kernel 5. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning. 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. XFS: screams with enormous files, fast recovery time. A few days ago I ran some fresh hard drive file-system benchmarks on Linux 4. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. 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. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). So its ext4. NTFS Linux file-system benchmarks by Michael Larabel for a future article on Phoronix. Share. 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. F2FS vs. EXT4 vs. Offizieller Beitrag. 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. I have 6 disks so I have created 3 logical disks, 2 SSDs each - just for testing. , Ext4 or XFS): they present whole families of file systems. The benchmark I linked attributes this to copy-on-write behaviour of btrfs. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. The impact of. 10 and 3. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. XFS distributes inodes evenly across the entire file system. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. Great for gaming machines. Here is a look at the Linux 5. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. There are several benchmarks online attempting to compare XFS to ext4 with various RDBMS platforms and tools. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. petronasAMG77 • 1 yr. ago. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. IOSTAT also showing EXT4 was at 98. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. LVM adds another layer which definitely does not make it more reliable. if date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. 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. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. Here are my results. Most versions of desktop Linux (known as distributions, or "distros" for short) default to the ext4 file system. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. With Dbench as well, XFS sees the largest drop in performance from KPTI and Retpoline support. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. They’re fast and reliable journaled filesystems. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. For anything with higher. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. The purpose of that patch was to help to improve read scalability in direct i/o mode. 2) (surprisingly, the loopback benchmark looks better than the raw-disk benchmark, presumably because of the smaller size of the loopback device, thus less time is spent on the actual sync-to-disk) Benchmark setupDependending on the hardware, ext4 will generally have a bit better performance. 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. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. Linux's Current File System. It was mature and robust. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. 7 - EXT4 vs. 0 moved to XFS in 2014. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. This time around, ext4 has managed > to get a significantly faster result than xfs. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. 2, and 4. 1829 tps). Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. Ext4#Improving performance and XFS#Performance. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. 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. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. With a throughput of around 2,026 MB/s the XFS filesystem seems to offer the best writing speed. Choosing the correct file system to use on a NAS server is a very important decision, depending on the use that we are going to give it, we can choose one file system or another, since it could provide us with higher performance, better data integrity and Other features. Native file systems (e. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. 1 Answer. 4% utilization. Memory requirement (even with dedup off) are (relatively) quite high. For storage, XFS is great and. Linux 5. It is suitable for PC platforms and. 9, 84. XFS offers better disk space utilization than ext3 and has much quicker disk formatting times than ext3. Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. 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. Momentum. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. 7. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. 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. 7. NTFS. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. Replica set members can definitely use different filesystems -- members aren't even aware of what filesystems are in use by their peers. btrfs: 1. It is faster with larger files. Recent File System Benchmarks - BTRFS XFX Ext4 F2FS. XFS vs. 7 max 97. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. 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. 2070 tps). 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). Back when Bcachefs debuted in. ZFS, Tux3, and Reiser4 weren't tested in. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. I installed CentOS 6. Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. • 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. . This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. Here are some of those XFS RAID benchmarks up against Btrfs and. It provides good performance with SSD and supports the TRIM (and FITRIM) feature to keep good SSD performance over time (this clears unused memory blocks for quick later write access). at least thin-LVM as storage type is something that people might use to provide the guests. List of archive formats. 7. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. brown2green.