On 4/17/19 6:38 PM, Gunther Schadow wrote: > So looks like XFS won. I like XFS for its ease of use especially when > growing. > > Any ideas on how ZFS might do? ZFS is of course so much more flexible. That would totally depend on your data sets and expectations. If you're doing a LOT of random inserts/updates/deletes, etc then you would have to tune the hell out of ZFS along with right caching layers in place. Same could be said of reads, but if you have a TON of memory in the server that's greatly mitigated and work well. If you're looking to warehouse big blobs of data or lots of archive and reporting; then by all means ZFS is a great choice. ZFS certainly can provide higher levels of growth and resiliency vs ext4/xfs. -- inoc.net!rblayzor XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net PGP: https://inoc.net/~rblayzor/
