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.blomdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
