An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has published Linux filesystem benchmarks comparing XFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems. 0 and today those results are being complemented by the solid-state drive results. 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. The 3 types of file systems support large file size and volume size. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. 7. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Here are my results. ext3/ext4: Use the barrier=0 mount option to disable barriers. If you have single vmdk on dedicated VMFS I wouldn't expect any difference compare to RDM. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. RHEL 7. NTFS. 7. 14 stable, now it's time to do a Linux 3. If you want raw speed, XFS is king. 10. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. We currently recommend XFS for production deployments. ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. 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. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. 15 FS performance to Linux 3. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. XFS vs. 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. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. À titre personnel, j’ai décidé de ne. 5k tps, so ~20% increase), but the jitter is clearly much higher. Furthermore, the Ext4 is designed to be backward compatible. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. 18. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. Short answer: under GNU/Linux, you should use a GNU/Linux native file system, such as ext4, XFS or btrfs, as your root partition, for stability and security. Finally, at last, ZFS managed to outperform both EXT4 and Ubuntu. 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. Ext4 is limited to a maximum file size of 16 TB, while NTFS can handle up to 256 TB worth of data. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. Ext4 is also a more traditional file system, while XFS provides more scalability and is better suited for large file systems. NVMe drives formatted to 4096k. 4 HDD RAID performance per his request with Btrfs, EXT4, and XFS while using consumer HDDs and an AMD Ryzen APU setup that could work out for a NAS type low-power system for anyone else that may be interested. . The server I'm working with is:2. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. It is strongly recommended not to reshape the raid; creating a new array with the same number of data disks and adding that with LVM. the COW which saves alot of space and increases the speed. 14 file-system performance comparison with a traditional hard drive. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. 4 usage of the XFS file system. 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. 21 merge window (now known as Linux 5. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. 4% utilization. It is suitable for PC platforms and. 15 or newer (Please the same OS using same activating services and same apps!)Recommend. At the time, ZFS was significantly slower than xfs and ext4 except when the L2ARC was used. 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. ext4 -b 1024 /dev/your_partition. A word of warning about F2FS. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. Its also not aligned with the Stratis concept, as that is closer to thin LVM with XFS just providing the top layer. Generally, ZFS is known for its superior performance in large-scale storage environments, while Btrfs is more performant in smaller-scale deployments. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. 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. HDFS on ext3 has been publicly tested on the Yahoo cluster, which makes it the safest choice for the underlying file system. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. Linux's Current File System. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. EXT4 vs. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. And you might just as well use EXT4. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. - no encryption. It's a 64-bit, journaling filesystem that has been built into the Linux kernel since 2001 and offers high performance for large filesystems and high degrees of concurrency (i. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. brown2green. Januar 2020. For more examples see the Markdown Cheatsheet. EXT4 vs. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. For example, an XFS file system's size can be increased, but it cannot reduced. With Dbench as well, XFS sees the largest drop in performance from KPTI and Retpoline support. Offizieller Beitrag. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. But yeah, it's (BTRFS) a more complex filesystem with a bottomless pit of asterisks and gotchas attached to it, EXT4 is much more limited in scope and much simpler from a design perspective. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. However, to be honest, it’s not the best Linux file system comparing to other Linux file systems. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. XFS allows multi-threaded concurrent journal commit while EXT4 has single threaded serial commit. 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. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. The smaller the block size (1024 bytes, p. . 6. 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. Btrfs vs Ext4. Some like zfs. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. g. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. 41 Toshiba. Ext4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. btrfs: 1. It provides an unlimited subdirectory. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 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. After deciding to use LVM2 as volumemanager on our servers there was also the wish for an online resizeable filesystem. Hello everyone, The time has come again for me to reinstall arch once more. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. micro server to make it worth it. an XFS filesystem on a straight disk partition. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. my nextcloud site). However, Linux limits ZFS file system capacity to 16 tebibytes. The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. I usually use ext4 on the root (OS) volume along with some space for VMs (that can be run on lvm/ext4). Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. 7 - EXT4 vs. 98 Toshiba. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. 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. Raw-VM and Qcow2-VM Filesystem type: ext4. The one they your distribution recommends. Kernel and File Systems. Additionally, Ext4 implements journaling, while XFS does not. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. If you plan to use it exclusively on Linux, stick with a Unix file system, such as XFS or EXT4. Memory requirement (even with dedup off) are (relatively) quite high. Packs several small files into same blocks, conserving filesystem space. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. 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. In. Recent File System Benchmarks - BTRFS XFX Ext4 F2FS. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. EXT4 vs. 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. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. 2. @Falzo said: I think in general the comparison is a bit. On SSDs and HDDs, it delivers fast atomic actions and stable values in the IOzone benchmark. The next subsections detail read workloads, write workloads, meta-data workloads, macro workloads, and the impact of performance vs. Review EXT4 vs. The system was set for Performance; whatever energy saving features I could find in the BIOS were turned off. Published very recently by Phoronix, a series of benchmark tests. 6. 5. 1. 2020. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. It also had faster reads, though the differences were smaller. ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of subvolumes is nice too, rather than having to partition). 14 vs. e. Here are some of those XFS RAID benchmarks up against Btrfs and. 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. try both and test the speeds for yourself. 3. It can store large files and has advanced features as compared to Ext2 and Ext3. 3 with zfs-2. Search Performance Test Btrfs Ext4 F2fs And Xfs On Linuxtrade goods, offerings, and more in your community area. The test data shown in the graphs below show modest differences between both. exFAT is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier. Você pode então configurar a aplicação de cotas usando uma opção de montagem. This enables extreme scalability of IO threads, filesystem bandwidth, file and filesystem size when spanning multiple storage devices. This of course comes at the cost of not having many important features that ZFS provides. xfs: 0. EXT4 vs. When use btrfs it's 35-40 MB/s. If you are concerned about your data integrity, as you clearly are, then use ZFS. 7 Average speed : 87. F2FS vs. 2070 tps). Here are some alternatives: XFS. 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. Based on these, I'd suggest either F2FS or XFS. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. 对于一些文件系统如Ext4等，在硬盘格式化时就全部确定了，而对于XFS则是动态生成的，BtrfS则是更特别的动态实现。. 6. Tips: You can mention users to notify them: @username You can use Markdown to format your question. XFS handles large files more efficiently while Ext4 performs better with large quantities of small files. There are two more empty drive bays in the. F2FS vs. Writeback interval and buffer size. In our experience Kafka is known to have index failures on such file systems. 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. 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. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following aspects: Larger Partition Size and File Size: Ext4 supports partition size up to 1 EiB and file. 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. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. 7. F2FS vs. XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. 6. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Note that while these tests are not indicative of real-world performance, we can extrapolate these results and use this as one reason. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device:XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. 2. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. From what I read. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. EXT4/XFS achieve higher throughput (~7. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. As long as filesystem journaling is concerned, XFS adopts far more so-04-22-2016 02:13 AM. which btw you should put in here then as well. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. 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. 04, see mkfs. 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). Operating system: Raw-VM is Ubuntu 12. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. Btrfs vs. F2FS vs. exFAT vs NTFS. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. EXT4 vs. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. The host is proxmox 7. 7. creating volumes and mounting them would need to check that option and decide on appropriate mount points. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Share. The regular XFS vs Ext4 benchmarks I'm seeing suggest it might be possible. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. 2. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features. 7 - EXT4 vs. ext3 is the most common format. It seems that the new file system may be applied more. 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 charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. EXT4 has entirely different design goals, none of which are data integrity. . 3. Xfs is the default for redhat. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. 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). Recommended for general use. Both filesystems provide COW but XFS fragments less (and it's data cow only so no snapshots, only reflinks). Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. 3. while ext4/xfs/btrfs are rather classical filesystems as such (and might have their benefits or not) - ZFS is not. XFS . For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. 0. 34, NO. 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. • 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. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. EXT4 vs. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. Bcachefs in its current state was benchmarked against EXT4/XFS/Btrfs/F2FS/ZFS with each file-system being tested with its default mount options and done using an Intel Optane 900p 280GB NVMe solid-state drive. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). ext4: 1 1 SMR. 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. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. First of all, some background history. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. 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. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. Sequential reads, however, were coming in slower. Observations. Both ext4 and XFS should be able to handle it. #filesystem #ext4 #xfs #linuxExplicación de las diferencias entre sistemas de archivos, en este vídeo se comparan los 2 mas usados en GNU/Linux. To. XFS provides a more efficient data organization system with higher performance capabilities but less reliability than ZFS, which offers improved accessibility as well as greater levels of data integrity. btrfs: 1. Ext4 provides more flexibility in terms of data storage. 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 date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. It provides near-native I/O performance even when the file system spans multiple storage devices. 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. How do the major file systems supported by Linux differ from each other?This would be an interesting test. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. With the initial create test in the compile benchmark, the performance of ZFS was over 3. Compressing the data is definitely worth it since there is no speed penalty. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. On an ssd desktop you will NOT notice a difference in performance between ext4 and xfs. Vide. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. Sorted by: 3. 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). It can hold up to 1 billion terabytes of data. 3. NTFS Linux file-system benchmarks by Michael Larabel for a future article on Phoronix. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. It's only a way to reduce writings to the disk, as it's a slow operation, and to reduce disk fragmentation. 7 - Btrfs vs. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance. For example btrfs supports transparent file compression. Here is a look at the Linux 5. Benchmark of Ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS With PostgreSQL Database benchmark on a VPS, using several filesystem and configuration options. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. The maximum total size of a ZFS file system is exbibytes minus one byte. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. 86 1. However, LVM can provide great performance as well, especially when used with specific (good-performing) filesystems like XFS or Ext4. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. XFS offers better disk space utilization than ext3 and has much quicker disk formatting times than ext3. 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. Given. XFS was surely a slow-FS on metadata operations, but it has been fixed recently as well. From what I read. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. XFS is a high-performance file system. SGI created XFS to handle huge files (xxx MB or more) very well. 1. 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. 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. Over time, these two filesystems have grown to serve very similar needs. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. g. 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:. . 6. F2FS vs. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. I tested an XFS filesystem on an LVM physical volume vs. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the > latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!파일시스템 비교 (ext4와 xfs) 7. "Open-source" is the primary reason people pick Btrfs over the competition. It has wider compatibility than NTFS, which means it's more likely to work with media players, consoles, and a variety of. With the PostMark disk benchmark, XFS and Btrfs were slightly. 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). Snapshots, transparent compression and quite importantly blocklevel checksums. Stripe size and width. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. First, btrfs is a perfectly cromulent single-disk ext4 replacement. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. Neither file system consistently outperforms the other in all workloads. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". 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. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4.