Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. List of archive formats. Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. Choosing the correct file system to use on a NAS server is a very important decision, depending on the use that we are going to give it, we can choose one file system or another, since it could provide us with higher performance, better data integrity and Other features. The 3 types of file systems support large file size and volume size. 7 - Btrfs vs. Review EXT4 vs. While looking at the filesystem options it seems like BTRFS is a lot more stable than it was the last time I had to install arch so now I am seriously considering using it. 19 and Linux 4. 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. ZFS is not yet ready. LVM adds another layer which definitely does not make it more reliable. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. ext4: 1 1 SMR. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. というのをベースにするとXFSが良い。 一般的にlinuxのブロックサイズは4kなので、xfsのほうが良さそう。 MySQLでページサイズ大きめならext4でもよい。xfsだとブロックサイズが大きくなるにつれて遅くなってる傾向が見える。ext4. 4 To 4. ext3/ext4: Use the barrier=0 mount option to disable barriers. 14 file-system performance comparison with a traditional hard drive. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. I've seen that EXT4 has better random I/O performance than XFS, especially on small reads and writes. XFS also tended to perform well along with the seldom mentioned NILFS2. The one they your distribution recommends. 18. F2FS vs. It would be interesting to see a new benchmark result of CoW filesystems BTRFS vs ZFS in real world 2022. Compared to XFS, Ext4 handles less file sizes for example maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. To be honest, one of the things that comes last in people’s thinking is to look at which file system on their PC is being used. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. XFS also consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then the Ext3 or Ext4 variants will be. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across. ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. In the case of the Intel 900p SSD, the XFS results were too fast to accurately measure while EXT4 and F2FS took just two seconds to complete while Btrfs took six seconds. Differences Between Ext3/4 and XFS 4. QCOW2 image file in a directory can do snapshots and thin provisioning. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. XFS vs. For really big data, you’d probably end up looking at shared storage, which by default means GFS2 on RHEL 7, except that for Hadoop you’d use HDFS or GlusterFS. It provides good performance with SSD and supports the TRIM (and FITRIM) feature to keep good SSD performance over time (this clears unused memory blocks for quick later write access). But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. XFS. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1) Id Fmt Data Metadt Rel_Perf 0 - 512 0 2 1. EXT4 is better in the general case. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. Built By the Slant team. ago. Honestly I wasn't aware of the huge amount of extends still created - that explains a bit. - No RAID. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. The system was set for Performance; whatever energy saving features I could find in the BIOS were turned off. 6. 0 storage standard as the Galaxy Note 10, but the former uses the EXT4 file system instead of F2FS. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. ext4 is not recommended. EXT4 vs. Generally, ZFS is known for having great performance. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. Presently, Ext4 is the maintainer deployed in the Android OS. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. XFS uses one allocation group per file system with striping. So I installed a new Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSD!! I previously had a Sandisk SSD formatted with ext4, just since it was the most stable (IMO) a few years back. F2FS vs. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. It was first released in 2008 and serves as the successor to ext3. 7 - EXT4 vs. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. I just got my first home server thanks to a generous redditor, and I'm intending to run Proxmox on it. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. Depending on the space in question, I typically end up using both ext4 (on lvm/mdadm) and zfs (directly over raw disks). For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. 7 max 97. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Here are a few other differences: Features: Btrfs has more advanced features, such as snapshots, data integrity checks, and built-in RAID support. #6. Comparison of file archivers. The PowerEdge-server operating system is currently Fedora 11 (64-bit. Phoronix: Linux 4. ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. 1829 tps). Search Performance Test Btrfs Ext4 F2fs And Xfs On Linuxtrade goods, offerings, and more in your community area. XFS is a full 64-bit filesystem and in theory it is capable of handling filesystems as large as 8 Exabytes For Oracle Linux, we support up to 100TB. 1. 24. . To be clear, this is not always the case, so it’s important to test both filesystems in your specific. Replica set members can definitely use different filesystems -- members aren't even aware of what filesystems are in use by their peers. 5k tps vs. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. I used a simplistic setup and an unfair benchmark which initially led to poor ZFS results. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier=1. 5k tps, so ~20% increase), but the jitter is clearly much higher. These are some performance tests on a Infortrend EonStor RAID system, attached via a LSI22320RB-F scsi HBA card, also known as LSI22320-R. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. As a DBA, this is what you want to see on your systems—minimum differences (jitter) during the whole benchmark run. To explicitly enable barriers, use barrier. Btrfs vs Ext4. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. When taking the geometric mean of all the test results, XFS was the fastest while F2FS delivered 95% the performance of XFS for this modern flash-optimized file-system. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in. 6. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". 2. 24. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. But yeah, it does look bad for BTRFS - you have to decide if the performance hit is worth it. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. 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. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. When a copy-on-write is needed, the driver searches through the image's layers to find the right file, starting from the topmost layer. 4 usage of the XFS file system. ext4 has better performance with large files. however, since last few years we seriously addressed the problems. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. 14 stable, now it's time to do a Linux 3. A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. For really big data, you’d probably end up looking at shared storage, which by default means GFS2 on RHEL 7, except that for Hadoop you’d use HDFS or GlusterFS. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. Tenga en cuenta que el uso de inode32 no afecta a los inodos que ya están asignados con números de 64 bits. 74 SMR. Ext4#Improving performance and XFS#Performance. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. With the WiredTiger storage engine, using XFS is strongly recommended for data bearing nodes to avoid performance issues that may. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. . Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. 7 - Btrfs vs. Here are some key differences between them: XFS is a high-performance file system that Silicon Graphics originally developed. Yes. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. If this filesystem will be on a striped RAID you can gain significant speed improvements by specifying the stripe size to the mkfs. NILFS is especially designed for flash memory drives, but does not really. To be honest I'm a little surprised how well Ext4 compared with exFAT ^_^. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. Btrfs was edging ahead of XFS and Btrfs with the IOzone write test although the performance on the Linux 3. Btrfs is one of the most. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. The mount command for ext4 has the "stripe" option. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4. We were using the latest 2. > I’m a blockquote. Observations. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Raw-VM and Qcow2-VM Filesystem type: ext4. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). With the CompileBench test, F2FS remains the fastest with EXT4, XFS, and F2FS seeing measurable drops in performance but the default Btrfs configuration was the slowest and did not see. 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. 64-Bit Support 2. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. If you use Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora Workstation, the installer defaults to ext4. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. It has proven itself over and over again across many terabytes and countless thousands (or perhaps millions) of files written on a wide variety of my HDDs and SSDs in various LUKS/LVM and non-LVM setups over the past decade. btrfs: 1. NTFS. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. 2. XFS will generally have better allocation group. Watching LearnLinuxTV's Proxmox course, he mentions that ZFS offers more features and better performance as the host OS filesystem, but also uses a lot of RAM. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. ZFS, the Zettabyte file system, was developed as part of the Solaris operating system created by Sun Microsystems. 10. Btrfs' RAID on Linux 5. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. XFS was running the fastest with IOzone. The results show ext4 perform a little better than xfs. 7. Page 1 of 4. ago. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. ZFS, Tux3, and Reiser4 weren't tested in. I used to format XFS using mkfs. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). If you think that you need. When use btrfs it's 35-40 MB/s. Each volume is like a single disk file. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. Storage. If you're on HDD and you need the ability to shrink the fs, then use EXT4, but you lose any COW benefits. 5 I/o scalability From day one, XFS has been designed to deal with high-performance disk subsystems, especially striped disk arrays with large aggregated bandwidth. 6. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. I've read that EXT4 beats XFS if you have dozens of threads doing I/O simulataneously, but if it's a application with just a few threads, ( say a database ) then XFS is faster. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. When I write (something like dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=512k count=20000 conv=fdatasync,fsync) and watch the system using iostats, I see that both BTRFS and EXT4 are writing at approximately the same. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. The BTRFS RAID is not difficult at all to create or problematic, but up until now, OMV does not support BTRFS RAID creation or management through the webGUI, so you have to use the terminal. They’re fast and reliable journaled filesystems. For the most. A word of warning about F2FS. 1. 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. So it could be a. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. Ext4 is also a more traditional file system, while XFS provides more scalability and is better suited for large file systems. With a throughput of around 2,026 MB/s the XFS filesystem seems to offer the best writing speed. 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. Yes, both BTRFS and ZFS have advanced features that are missing in EXT4. at least thin-LVM as storage type is something that people might use to provide the guests. For example, an XFS file system's size can be increased, but it cannot reduced. 2, 82. Native file systems (e. For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. F2FS vs. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare. - no encryption. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung. IMO XFS and F2FS seem like good choices for the most performance (F2FS was designed for SSDs). Abstract—The benchmark results for three most common file systems under Linux environment, ext4, xfs, and btrfs, used as guest file systems, were given in this paper. also, i've heard in some other posts about btrfs not having the best stability for sudden power loss. Each volume is like a single disk file. Downside is that it's a slower file system due to it's nature of redundancy. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. Phoronix: Linux 5. 0 and today those results are being complemented by the solid-state drive results. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. 6-pve1. brown2green. 15 or newer (Please the same OS using same activating services and same apps!)Recommend. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. Try to reformat that partition with the smallest block size: mkfs. RAID Support. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033-2EE) hard drives and the. XFS: screams with enormous files, fast recovery time. Linux 5. If Btrfs and EXT4 aren’t cutting it for you or aren’t supported by your choice of distro, there are a few other popular choices for file systems. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. Between 2T and 4T on a single disk, any of these would probably have similar performance. 9, 84. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. Each of these file systems has its own way of organizing data, merits, and demerits. Basically, LVM with XFS and swap. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. Snapraid says if the disk size is below 16TB there are no limitations, if above 16TB the parity drive has to be XFS because the parity is a single file and EXT4 has a file size limit of 16TB. 2. 6. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como. In many ways, Ext4 is a deeper improvement over Ext3 than Ext3 was over Ext2. For this reason, I took the time to extend the same benchmark to Oracle ASM (Automatic Storage Management) and also to Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL). • Specification defines an optimized register interface, command set and feature set. ext4 on the other hand has delayed allocation and a lot of other goodies that will make it more space efficient. As the load increased, both of the filesystems were limited by the throughput of the underlying hardware, but XFS still maintained its lead. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. Hello everyone, The time has come again for me to reinstall arch once more. EXT4 on Ubuntu 19. Beyond just testing the EXT4, Btrfs, and NILFS2 file-systems, we also threw in some results from EXT3 and XFS. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" Collapse section "2. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features. If you have a NAS or Home server, BTRFS or XFS can offer benefits but then you'll have to do some extensive reading first. 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. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. If possible, use XFS as it generally performs better with MongoDB. Benchmarking EXT4 vs XFS for that many files, EXT4 doesn't come close. But time is going, and the. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. 6. Sure the snapshot creation and rollback ist faster with btrfs but with ext4 on lvm you have a faster filesystem. Momentum. )It uses a default file system for Linux distribution, including Debian and Ubuntu. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. Provides good performance for many enterprise work load, and probably some desktop ones too. Server with complex storage needs including redundancy and you need high uptime, and you have the budget. Mdadm comparison, the dual-HDD Btrfs RAID benchmarks, and four-SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Btrfs benchmarks are RAID Linux benchmarks on these four Intel SATA 3. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. F2FS vs. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. It's only a way to reduce writings to the disk, as it's a slow operation, and to reduce disk fragmentation. ext4 has dellayed allocation and it's better with small files, too. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. So I did two rounds: the. 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. Larger files seem to be a problem. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. • 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. See Swap#Performance. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Vide. read link below. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. Packs several small files into same blocks, conserving filesystem space. Based on these, I'd suggest either F2FS or XFS. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. The XFS file system is an extension of the extent file system. ) – depends on how full the SSD isSadly XFS is not as as efficient with tiny files as other filesystems but the advantage make it come out ahead anyway. 1, 4. Additionally, XFS supports standard SSD. XFS tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. See below: XFSYou're welcome. 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. 1. 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. 7 on it. As you can imagine there is not a single and. 3. This is the number of data disks times the number of blocks per chunk, ie the size of a stripe in disk blocks. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. brown2green. Phoronix: Linux 5. 0 also used ext4. Re: Ext4 or Fat32 for hard drive? Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 am. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. 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。. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. I usually use ext4 on the root (OS) volume along with some space for VMs (that can be run on lvm/ext4). XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. EXT4 vs. For more comprehensive coverage of performance improvements relating to storage and file systems, refer. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. 68x faster than UFS+J. Share. Whilst it supposedly has advantages for dealing with larger files, this for me has always been eclipsed by the fact that you can't shrink xfs file systems. Generally NAS server operating systems like QNAP, Asustor or Synology. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. . Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a realistic one. 4 was performing the best for RAID0 and RAID10 modes while with RAID1, XFS was performing the best. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 1. Copy link Member. Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in. 1. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. 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). 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. 0-050600-generic. fast recovery, rivals XFS recovery times. To organize that data, ZFS uses a flexible tree in which each new system is a child file of a previous system. 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. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. XFS . historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.