Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. EXT4 vs. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. Given Canonical has brought. 86 1. ext4 and also reiserfs store files in a different way. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across. XFS was running the fastest with IOzone. Abstract and Figures. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. 2. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation of. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. F2FS vs. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. The benchmarks in this article are looking at the EXT4 / Btrfs / XFS / F2FS file-systems under the Linux 4. F2FS vs. 1829 tps). The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. So I think you should have no strong preference, except to consider what you are familiar with and what is best documented. ext4 is the safe choice that almost anyone. 1601 tps). Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. 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. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. AnthonyWC commented Dec 15, 2022. ZFS is not yet ready. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. Or they will be. It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. Posts: 5,135. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. But if you're hoping to replace ZFS—or a more complex stack built on discrete RAID management, volume management, and simple. 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. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. 8 snapshot as of last week. 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. It was first released in 2008 and serves as the successor to ext3. 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. I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. 3. 6. After a week of testing Btrfs on my laptop, I can conclude that there is a noticeable performance penalty vs Ext4 or XFS. NTFS Linux file-system benchmarks by Michael Larabel for a future article on Phoronix. I've built many (and maintain a number of) ZFS hosts with very large filesystems / databases. On an ssd desktop you will NOT notice a difference in performance between ext4 and xfs. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. 7. 1601 tps). But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. EXT4 led with RAID0 benchmarks when running the PostgreSQL server though the XFS tests had some. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. All of these Linux. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. 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. 3. . try both and test the speeds for yourself. Ext4 is the evolution of the most used Linux filesystem, Ext3. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. Ext4 file system is the successor to Ext3, and the mainstream file system under Linux. Btrfs vs Ext4. Btrfs is one of the most. 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. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. I've done a good bit of Kernel dev for Android. 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. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. I used hdparm and ran the following: sudo hdparm -Tt. EXT4: 2. Share. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. XFS is obviously still a good choice despite its age. 4 To 4. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. XFS tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. 5k tps vs. 5. The system was set for Performance; whatever energy saving features I could find in the BIOS were turned off. So it could be a. 7. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. XFS File. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. 3 kernel releases. With Btrfs you get self healing, snapshots, copy on write, background file system checks, online defragmentation, and much more. The fuse and fuseblk file system types are different from traditional file systems (e. 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). After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. brown2green. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. The Ext4 file system is a very old file system and it has been used on the Linux operating system for a long, long time. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. 4. Utilice. I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. NTFS. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. XFS offers better disk space utilization than ext3 and has much quicker disk formatting times than ext3. 3. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. 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. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. Observations. 15 or newer (Please the same OS using same activating services and same apps!)Recommend. 6. There was a higher risk than upon disconnection or loss of power than some of the files are truncated. F2FS vs. The benchmarks suggest XFS is the fastest filesystem for SSDs. ext4 has been an improvement to the ext3 file system, which was an improvement over the ext2 file system before it. overlay2 offers a good balance between performance and efficiency for copy-on-write operations. ext4 is the successor to ext3. Raw-VM and Qcow2-VM Filesystem type: ext4. 9, 97. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. To make the benchmarks above more clear, it might might help to normalise them relative to the performance of ext4 on each disk:. For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. 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. In many ways, Ext4 is a deeper improvement over Ext3 than Ext3 was over Ext2. Re: Ext4 or Fat32 for hard drive? Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 am. 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). For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. EXT4 vs. 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. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash. To make the benchmarks above more clear, it might might help to normalise them relative to the performance of ext4 on each disk: ops randappend SMR. exFAT vs NTFS. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. EXT4 vs. 10. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. 7. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. Then later, I was actually able to convert that from btrfs-raid10 to btrfs-raid1 overnight while in use. 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. Some like zfs. Btrfs was edging ahead of XFS and Btrfs with the IOzone write test although the performance on the Linux 3. As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. petronasAMG77 • 1 yr. It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). I have 6 disks so I have created 3 logical disks, 2 SSDs each - just for testing. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. resource utilization; finally, the impact of. 18. 34, NO. 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. Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. EXT4: Alternative File Systems for Linux Operating Systems. Depending on the space in question, I typically end up using both ext4 (on lvm/mdadm) and zfs (directly over raw disks). Swap space. I usually use ext4 on the root (OS) volume along with some space for VMs (that can be run on lvm/ext4). As always, your mileage may vary 🙂. Tested on the SSD were the popular EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems. Small example: One plus 7 Pro has the same UFS 3. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher. ago. my nextcloud site). To. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. BTRFS vs EXT4 speed and compression. 2. Small_Light_9964 • 1 yr. 출처 : Red Hat CUSTOMER PORTAL. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. F2FS vs. 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 vs. EXT4 vs. I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. • 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. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. g. Btrfs vs. Phoronix: Linux 5. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. 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). 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. If you dig in to its history, you will see SGI was famous for workstations designed for audio and video editing. Observations. Page 1 of 4. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. "Open-source" is the primary reason people pick Btrfs over the competition. 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. In conclusion, it is clear that xfs and zfs offer different advantages depending on the user’s needs. XFS vs Ext4. BTRFS is basically the Linux version of ZFS (rather than just ZFS ported to Linux), but it still needs work around RAID. When running one copy of the SQLite embedded database library, the XFS file-system had a slim lead over NILFS2 and F2FS while EXT4 was the slowest on this Linux 5. ZFS allows users to move these files anywhere and even to attach them to the ZFS on. Its also not aligned with the Stratis concept, as that is closer to thin LVM with XFS just providing the top layer. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. Btrfs on SSD, XFS on HDD. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. 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. 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). ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. It is suitable for PC platforms and. The PowerEdge-server operating system is currently Fedora 11 (64-bit. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. 6. I used a simplistic setup and an unfair benchmark which initially led to poor ZFS results. If you have single vmdk on dedicated VMFS I wouldn't expect any difference compare to RDM. e. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. @Falzo said: I think in general the comparison is a bit. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. Already have an account? Sign in to comment. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. Comparison of file archivers. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. 68x faster than UFS+J. Neither file system consistently outperforms the other in all workloads. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. With a throughput of around 2,026 MB/s the XFS filesystem seems to offer the best writing speed. It appears that ZFS may be a viable option, but do bear in mind to disable compression and encryption as they may impact performance. 0. There are two more empty drive bays in the. As you can imagine there is not a single and. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Ext4 is limited to a maximum file size of 16 TB, while NTFS can handle up to 256 TB worth of data. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. If you end up increasing the size of the box then it's going to become more relevant. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. For storage, XFS is great and. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4,7. However, LVM can provide great performance as well, especially when used with specific (good-performing) filesystems like XFS or Ext4. Here are some more benchmarks. advantages. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. 0 while today is just a comparison of six file-systems using a traditional HDD. 3. The BTRFS RAID is not difficult at all to create or problematic, but up until now, OMV does not support BTRFS RAID creation or management through the webGUI, so you have to use the terminal. 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. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). 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. Recommended for general use. 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. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. e. With Bcachefs on its trek towards the mainline Linux kernel, this week I conducted some benchmarks using the very latest Bcachefs file-system code and compared its performance to the mainline Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system competitors on both rotating and solid-state storage. Migrating from ext4 to XFS" Collapse section "3. Use the storage driver with the best overall. I use Warp and mc support perf for benchmark. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. 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. 6-pve1. 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. El sistema de archivos es mayor de 2 TiB con inodos de 512 bytes. XFS scales better to extremely large file systems and high thread counts. It scales with a number of controller replicas, which can bring extra. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. But time is going, and the. darkimmortal Member. Back when Bcachefs debuted in. 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. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. The ext4 file system may have potential data loss issues with default options because of the "delayed writes" feature. Having this opportunity I wanted to put some hard numbers to my previous observations regarding ext4 vs Btrfs performance on my T430 running Qubes OS R4. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. . Both ext4 and XFS should be able to handle it. XFS supports larger file sizes and. . However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. XFS vs. 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. 7 - Btrfs vs. 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. 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 does not support concurrent writes, XFS does" (But) EXT4 is more "mainline"Further Reading. F2FS vs. 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. 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. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. EXT4 vs. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. if date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. 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). 98 Toshiba. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. 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. We decided to get to the bottom of it by quantitatively investigating MongoDB performance on XFS so you can compare whether EXT4 is a better choice for your. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. A Seagate FireCuda 520 PCIe 4. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. Here are my results. ext4 also introduced delayed allocation of data, which adds a bit more risk with unplanned server outages while decreasing fragmentation and improving performance. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. 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. Q0heleth added community triage labels Feb 13, 2023. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. 6. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. Basically, LVM with XFS and swap. And you might just as well use EXT4. 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. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. See Sysctl#Virtual memory for details. also, i've heard in some other posts about btrfs not having the best stability for sudden power loss. 0-050600-generic. To be honest I'm a little surprised how well Ext4 compared with exFAT ^_^. ext4 to specify a file system label. Benchmark of Ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS With PostgreSQL Database benchmark on a VPS, using several filesystem and configuration options. • 2 yr. you can chroot, but you won't really have a performance issue with the native WSL drive. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. ext4: 1 1 SMR. EXT4 vs. Improve this answer. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. RAID Support. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. For more examples see the Markdown Cheatsheet. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 08:59:13PM +0000, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > What would be the best filesystem to run PostgreSQL on, in Terms of Performance > and data Integrity? Uh, which operating system? If it is Linux, many people like ext4 or xfs. There are not three filesystem formats, but filesystem formats defined by a combination of features. 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. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. • 2 yr. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. A word of warning about F2FS. 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.