Re: EXT4 vs XFS

--nextPart4514759.ejJDZkT8p0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Michael <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] EXT4 vs XFS
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:43:26 +0100
Message-ID: <2708914.Lt9SDvczpP@rogueboard>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thursday, 4 June 2026 08:35:17 British Summer Time Matthias Hanft 
wrote:
> Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
> > On my laptop I'm currently using EXT4 formatted disks and don't have
> > any complaints.  Recently someone suggested XFS to me, and
> > searching the In- ternet I found  mixed arguments  about which
> > filesystem  to prefer.   Is anybody on this list using XFS  and
> > would like  to share their experien- ces?
> 
> I've been using XFS on a server with a 17 TB hardware RAID6 (8 disks,
> hot swap) for more than ten years - without any problems.
> 
> The reason for XFS was just that the guv who sold me the hardware said
> "use XFS at best" - but I can't remember why he told me so (perhaps
> because of the size).
> 
> Anyway, it didn't "feel" any better of worse than EXT4.
> 
> -Matt

I think on a home server it is unlikely you'd notice a difference 
between XFS and ext4 in their daily performance.  I'd wager in a 
datacenter with huge arrays, being hammered by thousands of clients 
reading/writing GB-large files, XFS would stand out as a more suitable 
fs.

XFS is actively developed with more features added all the time, e.g.:

https://gist.github.com/braindevices/4d0e0a030c7c6500dd3290714e5c0467

You can see a comparison between the two fs on high performant hardware 
here:

https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-611-filesystems

and more specific tests to destruction on NVMe here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dgdwh24omg

With ECC RAM, multi-lane PCIe 5.0 controller and NVMe drive arrays I'd 
choose XFS for large data storage.  However, other than high throughput 
for specific use cases there is also the issue of features offered by 
different filesystems.  ZFS & BTRFS filesystem based RAID, subvolumes, 
snapshots, compression, send-receive, autodefrag, checksumming, 
balancing, srubbing, etc., means you'd opt for one of these if you need/
want their features.

Still, I think on old hardware with non-ECC RAM, slow CPU, and a slow 
spinning drive, ext4 remains as bulletproof a choice as you can have.

--nextPart4514759.ejJDZkT8p0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJPBAABCAA5FiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmohVs4bFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyAAoJELHqqvbClWcZsnkQAJiNj7saR+Brs2VRukZn
3+eIiogH/Nzg0I3wXRV4bMb03uEu1xY+xsw/N1UIUtpusVpN1LGwKKXHwtKd5i6z
B8EYTZWqtGG4GV5P13lKvWoxpXxPRGwZY6Zh1i5VcwgYYtd4SVRV+O/biRXvnbZI
hRaqDJ6Nx1LbWgVleQG/J9S4YP+0L0ISdoo8GPoDGfXIn7kFORbwHKeINdbJDINu
aSKsjE76e5yjWDyGeuzmDoQWF4mxJKpxkmMaX0uR5Pa1/YftNxunJAaOLMw8k82H
b4r0SK/6tGedCKLsEIB90ezQY6Er1bixhrtG1ie8vIpxWRC5lkB06wCvQr0MyW1O
7ymhxE1S4qCjNhdZESJogLECtVqqOAQJFb80JBTnSPe6c8JE3BITd8FLbtcG11YR
o6udE3nLlQRHtY06Ns6i+Tf++QUsTmk/CR+7bDHB6+SlmZ87E0H3sUYUXgWJ64fQ
VLwHceDhX6KIwNJFEZXkfhpzmpEjLDK4f/mlJsU+A6SKTdaZNgPce0EMvGs40sw7
XkDZMpYzSkGPIdBoi4CyvSc+WGBWAqlDo+mswh7m0L/OCvnGfoxfZO/6C2OKojfL
ycw/Av38gCLMzjUfjyDs5coeX0xTO09ZexEHFK4HYcKWpFIQ+oXosUCWAUp+ZICX
kqhUsYAb5uDwQMbKtADS1um5
=4bAk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart4514759.ejJDZkT8p0--