On Mon 13 Aug 2012 08:28:15 PM IST, Michael Hampicke wrote:
I guess traversing through directories may be faster with XFS, but in my experience ext4 perfoms better than XFS in regard to operations (cp, rm) on small files. I read that there are some tuning options for XFS and small files, but never tried it.But if somone seconds XFS I will try it too.It's been a while since I messed with this but isn't XFS the one that hates power failures and such? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Well, it's the delayed allocation of XFS (which prevents fragmentation) that does not like sudden power losses :) But ext4 has that too, you can disable it though - that should be true for XFS too. But the power situation in the datacenter has never been a problem so far, and even if the cache partition get's screwed, we can always rebuild it. Takes a few hours, but it would not be the end of the world :)
Yes, XFS hates power failures. I got a giant UPS for my home desktop to use XFS because of it's excellent performance ;-)
-- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com
