I've also heard it can be slower however I've never done any performance tests on the same hardware with ext3/4 vs XFS since my partitions are so big ext3/4 is just not an option. With that said I've been pleased with the performance I get and am a happy XFS user. ls On Sep 24, 2011 12:31 PM, "Craig Carl" <craig at gestas.net> wrote: > XFS is a valid alternative to ZFS on Linux. If I remember correctly any operation that requires modifying a lot of xattr's can be slower than ext*, have you noticed anything like that? You might see slower rebalances or self healing? > > Craig > > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse my tpyos. > > On Sep 24, 2011, at 22:14, Liam Slusser <lslusser at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have a very large, >500tb, Gluster cluster on Centos Linux but I use the XFS filesystem in a production role. Each xfs filesystem (brick) is around 32tb in size. No problems all runs very well. >> >> ls -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110924/58bc4275/attachment.htm>
