<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/12/2014 03:21 AM, Lindsay
Mathieson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2940852.atz0GbyvGD@lindsay-office" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
XFS scales well when there is lot of meta data and multi-threaded
I/O involved [1]. <br>
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.<br>
<br>
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://xfs.org/images/d/d1/Xfs-scalability-lca2012.pdf">http://xfs.org/images/d/d1/Xfs-scalability-lca2012.pdf</a><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2940852.atz0GbyvGD@lindsay-office" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
nb. While you can use a external journal with xfs I found the support and
tools for it too marginal to risk using. Unable to move, resize or remove the
journal without manually editing the partition bytes, whereas ext4 has tune2fs
for all of that. Plus builtin support for loading the journal via label or
uuid.
thanks,
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users">http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>