When running FS-Mark, F2FS was the fastest for the SATA/USB storage tests while XFS picked up another win when it came to the Optane 900p performance, followed by F2FS.
For FS-Mark with four threads, F2FS was still the fastest for the SATA 3.0 SSD while EXT4 turned out to be the fastest for the USB-to-SATA configuration. Btrfs continued operating very buggy with the USB storage setup and failed to run the rest of the benchmarks. On the NVMe SSD, the four-thread FS-Mark was the fastest on XFS followed by Btrfs.
Under Compile Bench, EXT4 was the fastest on all three drives followed by a mix of XFS and F2FS.
The PostgreSQL database server ran well particularly on EXT4 and XFS while F2FS on the USB 3.0 SSD testing ran into a strange performance drop while Btrfs was still problematic from the USB storage.
FAQs
The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. 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.
Is XFS better than Btrfs? ›
XFS is known for its high performance, scalability, and reliability when handling large and concurrent files or directories. XFS supports some features that btrfs does not have, such as online defragmentation, quota management, or journaling.
What is the best Linux file system for performance? ›
The ext4 system is the fourth generation of the ext partitioning file system, so it has better performance than previous versions. XFS still performs better with large file input and output, but ext4 performs better with smaller file transfers.
Is f2fs faster than ext4? ›
Ext4 is perfectly fine in real world situations. Technically, f2fs benchmarks better but that is when you are perfoming thousands of operations at once. You're most likely not going to do this on an Android device. In daily usage, you would not notice any difference in performance using the ext4 journaling system.
Why XFS is better than ext4? ›
In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following aspects: Larger Partition Size and File Size: Ext4 supports partition size up to 1 EiB and file size up to 16 TiB, while XFS supports partition size and file size up to 8 EiB. Please note that XFS is a 64-bit file system.
What are the downsides of Btrfs? ›
No native support for encryption and storage limitations compared to ZFS are the two disadvantages of Btrfs. Third-party vendors provide encryption for Btrfs, so administrators have a workaround. The additional storage space is necessary for the shadow copies.
What are the disadvantages of Btrfs? ›
The main disadvantages of the Btrfs file system
High level of data fragmentation – occurs due to the use of “copy-on-write” technology. Most often observed when overwriting a large number of small data blocks.
What is the most reliable filesystem for Linux? ›
ext4 is the standard and a safe choice. XFS is also quite stable and great for large files and heavy multiprocessing.
Is Btrfs faster than ext4? ›
Which is faster, BTRFS or EXT4? In general, EXT4 performs better in terms of speed. While providing advanced features, BTRFS can be slower due to the overhead of these features.
What is the preferred file system for Linux? ›
Ext4 is the most widely used and default file system for many Linux distributions. It is the successor to Ext3 and comes with various improvements, including better performance, increased file size limits, and faster file system checks.
Why use Ext4 over Btrfs? Ext4 has capabilities like online defragmentation, quota management, and journaling that btrfs does not. However, many of the capabilities offered by btrfs, including snapshots, compression, encryption, deduplication, RAID, subvolumes, and checksums, are not supported by ext4.
What are the advantages of f2fs over EXT4? ›
It reduces elapsed time of several realistic workloads by up to 40%. On a server system, F2FS is shown to perform better than EXT4 by up to 2.5× (SATA SSD) and 1.8× (PCIe SSD). NAND flash memory has been used widely in various mobile devices like smartphones, tablets and MP3 play- ers.
What are the disadvantages of EXT4? ›
Cons of EXT4:
- Limited scalability: EXT4 is limited in its ability to scale to handle large amounts of storage compared to other file systems such as ZFS.
- No built-in snapshots: EXT4 does not have built-in snapshot support, so users have to rely on other tools or solutions to manage backups.
Some of the most notable drawbacks include: Required data journaling: While data journaling is a benefit to traditional, hard disk drives (HDDs), it can actually reduce the longevity of solid-state drives (SSDs). Unfortunately, the data journaling feature cannot be disabled in XFS.
What are the disadvantages of XFS file system? ›
Metadata operations in XFS were slower compared to journaling file systems implemented later and designed to work with much larger logs resulting in, for example, slower performance with operations such as deletions of large numbers of files.
Is ZFS better than XFS? ›
Finally, even if XFS can also create snapshots as ZFS does, the performance of the snapshots is considerably better in ZFS. Moreover, the process of getting snapshots in ZFS is more straightforward, automatic, and reliable.
What are the advantages of XFS? ›
XFS provides a 64-bit sparse address space for each file, which allows both for very large file sizes, and for "holes" within files in which no disk space is allocated. As the file system uses an extent map for each file, the file allocation map size is kept small.
Is XFS faster than ZFS? ›
In combination with the B+ tree implementation, we should be able to retrieve and find data faster than ZFS. Moreover, from a standard installation without tweaking the parameters, XFS performs slightly better than ZFS (in I/O operations) and uses fewer resources.
Is XFS stable? ›
The XFS v5 on-disk format is considered stable for production workloads starting in Linux Kernel 3.15. Note: Unlike Btrfs and ZFS, the CRC32 checksum only applies to the metadata and not actual data.
