On 2014-11-12 05:54, Ravishankar N wrote: > On 11/12/2014 03:21 AM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote: >> Just wondering about the usecases. In all my testing ext4 has been >> consistently faster for sustained and random read/writes on large files (VM >> images). >> >> Tested with/without external ssd journals and caches. > XFS scales well when there is lot of meta data and multi-threaded I/O > involved [1]. > Choosing a file system is mostly about running the kind of workload you > would expect your system to see, with your hardware configuration and your > version of the OS. If ext4 gives you better performance when used as back > end for gluster with your settings and workload, there shouldn't be any > reason why you cannot go with it. > > [1] http://xfs.org/images/d/d1/Xfs-scalability-lca2012.pdf I have seen weirdness with ext4 and replicated volumes, see thread "[Gluster-devel] Duplicate entries and other weirdness in a 3*4 volume" started at 17 July.
/Anders -- Anders Blomdell Email: anders.blomd...@control.lth.se Department of Automatic Control Lund University Phone: +46 46 222 4625 P.O. Box 118 Fax: +46 46 138118 SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
