On 10/20/2011 11:11 AM, Sabuj Pattanayek wrote: > IIRC XFS also has long fsck times. I don't know of any fs's which > don't, but I guess you've seen different behavior with respect to ext4 > vs xfs on that issue. One thing I like about XFS is the short mkfs > time, on the order of a few seconds vs minutes or hours with EXT3/4 > for large fs's.
The issues with both random-access performance and fsck times vary a lot according to *exactly* which version of each you're using. I'm in the same group as many of the developers for both, and those guys are very busy. Last I heard, the fsck time and memory requirements were pretty similar between the two, and any version of XFS with delayed logging should be pretty competitive with ext4 for random access or metadata-heavy workloads. I don't even know if that information is current any more, though. As always, YMMV and test your own workload. _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
