El ext4 y xf. It's only a way to reduce writings to the disk, as it's a slow operation, and to reduce disk fragmentation. Or they will be. As you can imagine there is not a single and. Here are my results. 3. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. . Ext4 is limited to a maximum file size of 16 TB, while NTFS can handle up to 256 TB worth of data. The next subsections detail read workloads, write workloads, meta-data workloads, macro workloads, and the impact of performance vs. From what I read. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. 4% utilization. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. 14 file-system performance comparison with a traditional hard drive. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. So each file-system will be 10 TB. For an average user the only thing that really matters are the special features like checksums, journaling, snapshots and so on but you. They’re fast and reliable journaled filesystems. I used a simplistic setup and an unfair benchmark which initially led to poor ZFS results. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. micro server to make it worth it. Which one brings the best performance in an EXT4 vs XFS standoff? Truth is, each ZFS, BTRFS, XFS, or EXT4 file system – to only name the most popular ones – has pros and cons. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. Based on these, I'd suggest either F2FS or XFS. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. XFS vs. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. Ext4 file system is the successor to Ext3, and the mainstream file system under Linux. Si su aplicación falla con números de inodo grandes, monte el sistema de archivos XFS con la opción -o inode32 para imponer números de inodo inferiores a 232. ago. 3. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. 7 on it. EXT4 vs. Watching LearnLinuxTV's Proxmox course, he mentions that ZFS offers more features and better performance as the host OS filesystem, but also uses a lot of RAM. I developed an application recently and compared the I/O performance of both and found ext4 to be slightly quicker for my application which was really just opening and reading whole files into memory. Review EXT4 vs. So I did two rounds: the. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example:For this round of testing on a Dell PowerEdge server with dual EPYC 7601 processors were using four Samsung 860 EVO SATA 3. Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. Short answer: under GNU/Linux, you should use a GNU/Linux native file system, such as ext4, XFS or btrfs, as your root partition, for stability and security. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. The performance of Btrfs vs. The benchmarks in this article are looking at the EXT4 / Btrfs / XFS / F2FS file-systems under the Linux 4. EXT4 has entirely different design goals, none of which are data integrity. Furthermore, the Ext4 is designed to be backward compatible. very fast directory search. Januar 2020. g. The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. For more comprehensive coverage of performance improvements relating to storage and file systems, refer. EXT4 is a legacy file system, and Btrfs represents future developments in the Linux space. Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. ext4: 1 1 SMR. 0 Sandtorg code of this open-source benchmarking software. Both cases, a mechanical drive. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning that it took longer for files to be accessed on the file system. checksum verification on each file. ext4 has dellayed allocation and it's better with small files, too. ago. g. 4 HDD RAID performance per his request with Btrfs, EXT4, and XFS while using consumer HDDs and an AMD Ryzen APU setup that could work out for a NAS type low-power system for anyone else that may be interested. I developed an application recently and compared the I/O performance of both and found ext4 to be slightly quicker for my application which was really just opening and reading whole files into memory. With the CompileBench test, F2FS remains the fastest with EXT4, XFS, and F2FS seeing measurable drops in performance but the default Btrfs configuration was the slowest and did not see. EXT4 vs. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger files The question is XFS vs EXT4. 4 was performing the best for RAID0 and RAID10 modes while with RAID1, XFS was performing the best. 2, 82. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance. Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 file system variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference Storage : 2019-04-24: FreeBSD ZFS vs. darkimmortal Member. The 3 types of file systems support large file size and volume size. For more than 3 disks, or a spinning disk with ssd, zfs starts to look very interesting. F2FS vs. Una vez que hemos conocido las principales características de EXT4, vamos a hablar sobre Btrfs, el que se conoce como sucesor natural del sistema de archivos EXT4. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. Share. XFS vs. The Ext4 file system is a very old file system and it has been used on the Linux operating system for a long, long time. But if you're hoping to replace ZFS—or a more complex stack built on discrete RAID management, volume management, and simple. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. The mount command for ext4 has the "stripe" option. This includes workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread. Perhaps most interesting from today's results were the startup-time application results where the Flash-Friendly File-System easily won across all of those. 1. but rather comparable to the usage of md-raid underneath or LVM. Whilst it supposedly has advantages for dealing with larger files, this for me has always been eclipsed by the fact that you can't shrink xfs file systems. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. Migrating from ext4 to XFS" Collapse section "3. Between 2T and 4T on a single disk, any of these would probably have similar performance. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. . 2070 tps). All these benchmarks were carried out in a fully-automated and. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. 2. XFS scales much better on modern multi-threaded workloads. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. ext4 is the successor to ext3. The per-second throughput varies roughly between 5k and 9k tps—not great, not terrible. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. See full list on linuxopsys. 3. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. The problem (which i understand is fairly common) is that performance of a single NVMe drive on zfs vs ext4 is atrocious. EXT4 I have no experience with, but XFS, despite all the hype, I think is better avoided. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. I've built many (and maintain a number of) ZFS hosts with very large filesystems / databases. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. Page 1 of 4. Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a realistic one. As the load increased, both of the filesystems were limited by the throughput of the underlying hardware, but XFS still maintained its lead. You didn't provide the Linux distribution information, but assuming CentOS or Red Hat, XFS is now somewhat integrated. To. 9: “ext4: Allow parallel DIO reads”. Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. This paper analyzes the performance of thee file systems in Linux environment. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. Btrfs vs. - No RAID. Você deve ativar as cotas na montagem inicial. Mdadm comparison, the dual-HDD Btrfs RAID benchmarks, and four-SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Btrfs benchmarks are RAID Linux benchmarks on these four Intel SATA 3. ext4 is not recommended. Updating 1 million files takes ages. ) – improvements, bugfixes. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. NILFS is especially designed for flash memory drives, but does not really. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. First of all, some background history. I use lvm snapshots only for the root partition (/var, /home and /boot are on a different partitions) and I have a pacman hook that does a snapshot when doing an upgrade, install or when removing packages (it takes about 2 seconds). Overall, except for application launch time, benchmark results show that ZFS is the slowest file system in terms of read and write speed due to its COW operating type, while EXT4 is usually the fastest system. In the future, Linux distributions will gradually shift towards BtrFS. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. I'm not sure if most are aware but Android is now using F2FS as the new filesystem type for the data partition instead of EXT4 after Google extensively tested the performance improvements and flash storage wear performance. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. 61 CommentsIn some ways, btrfs simply seeks to supplant ext4, the default filesystem for most Linux distributions. 2 SSD as yesterday's testing and using the same 4. Multimedia Sanctuaries: With large files as daily bread, ext4 is indispensable. From 4 - 80 TB pools. Benchmarking EXT4 vs XFS for that many files, EXT4 doesn't come close. The ext4 file system may have potential data loss issues with default options because of the "delayed writes" feature. while ext4/xfs/btrfs are rather classical filesystems as such (and might have their benefits or not) - ZFS is not. If you think that you need. Last week I posted some fresh Linux file-system tests on a hard drive but for those preferring solid-state drives, here are some fresh benchmarks. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. We were using the latest 2. If you found this article helpful then do click on 👏 the button and also feel. Q0heleth added community triage labels Feb 13, 2023. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features. > I’m a blockquote. Each volume is like a single disk file. XFS will generally have better allocation group. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. 또한 ext3. Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). XFS is obviously still a good choice despite its age. Using Btrfs, just expanding a zip file and trying to immediately enter that new expanded folder in Nautilus, I am presented with a “busy” spinning graphic as Nautilus is preparing to display the new folder contents. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. Choosing the correct file system to use on a NAS server is a very important decision, depending on the use that we are going to give it, we can choose one file system or another, since it could provide us with higher performance, better data integrity and Other features. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. If you want raw speed, XFS is king. Presently, Ext4 is the maintainer deployed in the Android OS. 1601 tps). 19 and Linux 4. But even with all of its features, it aims to offer XFS/EXT4-like performance, which is something that can't generally be said for Btrfs. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. So its ext4. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. ext4 also introduced delayed allocation of data, which adds a bit more risk with unplanned server outages while decreasing fragmentation and improving performance. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. Mounting and Optimization: Once converted, the filesystem can be mounted as ext4. A execução do comando quotacheck em um sistema de. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. , Ext4 or XFS): they present whole families of file systems. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. See below: XFSYou're welcome. Probably those edge cases are not visible on an external USB hard drive, could be visible with external SSDs on a USB3. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. Stripe size and width. Things like snapshots, copy-on-write, checksums and more. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. It supports large file systems and provides excellent scalability and reliability. XFS vs ext4 performanceHelpful? Please support me on Patreon: thanks & praise to God, and with thanks to the many. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. BTRFS. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. 0-050600-generic. Differences Between Ext3/4 and XFS 4. The CompileBench performance was mixed. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. 3 (1994) – 2000 - released under GPL – 2002 – merged into 2. 10 and 3. From what I read. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". xfs: 0. Hi folks, just wondering if anyone has experience with running clickhouse on ext4 vs xfs? And if there is any benchmark of ext4 vs xfs for clickhouse data volume? Specifically with high IOPS. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. 10. À titre personnel, j’ai décidé de ne. Phoronix: Linux 5. 88. The major difference between ext4 and XFS file systems is that the ext4 file system works better for fewer size files (single write/read thread) while the XFS works more efficiently. EXT4 vs. I've read that EXT4 beats XFS if you have dozens of threads doing I/O simulataneously, but if it's a application with just a few threads, ( say a database ) then XFS is faster. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. XFS was originally developed by Silicon Graphics for IRIX and later ported to Linux. Operating system: Raw-VM is Ubuntu 12. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. 9, 84. 0-050600-generic. Given Canonical has brought. 24. Ticket Spinlocks. Figure 3 - Using psync engine with FIO* tool. ) – depends on how full the SSD isSadly XFS is not as as efficient with tiny files as other filesystems but the advantage make it come out ahead anyway. To be honest, one of the things that comes last in people’s thinking is to look at which file system on their PC is being used. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . From what I read. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". 3. e. If you have a NAS or Home server, BTRFS or XFS can offer benefits but then you'll have to do some extensive reading first. So it could be a. というのをベースにするとXFSが良い。 一般的にlinuxのブロックサイズは4kなので、xfsのほうが良さそう。 MySQLでページサイズ大きめならext4でもよい。xfsだとブロックサイズが大きくなるにつれて遅くなってる傾向が見える。ext4. When I write (something like dd if=/dev/zero of=test2 bs=512k count=20000 conv=fdatasync,fsync) and watch the system using iostats, I see that both BTRFS and EXT4 are writing at approximately the same. We recommend EXT4 or XFS. It turned out that XFS is slow with many small files - you should not use it for this use case. 3. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. For storage, XFS is great and. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. EXT4 and XFS both use efficient lookup methods for file names, but if you ever need to run tools over the directories such as ls or find you will be very glad to have the files in manageable chunks of 1,000 - 10,000 files. 10 's new experimental ZFS desktop install option in opting for using ZFS On Linux in place of EXT4 as the root file-system, here are some quick benchmarks looking at the out-of-the-box performance of ZFS/ZoL vs. I use Warp and mc support perf for benchmark. After deciding to use LVM2 as volumemanager on our servers there was also the wish for an online resizeable filesystem. 0 mainline kernel and using. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. The ext4 file system mainly enhances the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the Linux Kernel. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. . 6-pve1. doc_willis • 2 yr. Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. Linux 5. In. • A specification for accessing solid-state drives (SSDs) attached through the PCI Express (PCIe) bus. Tested for this comparison were Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, and F2FS from an SSD while running with the Linux 4. Ext4 provides more flexibility in terms of data storage. The file-systems being benchmarked here are EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs. 1. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. Tips: You can mention users to notify them: @username You can use Markdown to format your question. Btrfs is one of the most. Updating 1 million files takes ages. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. Downside is that it's a slower file system due to it's nature of redundancy. It is suitable for PC platforms and. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. EXT4 vs. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. Btrfs vs Ext4. 2010’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). Sorted by: 3. This is addressed in this knowledge base article; the main consideration for you will be the support levels available: Ext4 is supported up to 50TB, XFS up to 500TB. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. ext4 to specify a file system label. We benchmarked XFS vs EXT4 file system on these storage devices as well. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. F2FS vs. 15 kernel was unchanged compared to Linux 3. #6. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. 1 interface. you can chroot, but you won't really have a performance issue with the native WSL drive. 1. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. Both filesystems provide COW but XFS fragments less (and it's data cow only so no snapshots, only reflinks). XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. 另外，我们常说的file对象，它用于关联进程和dentry对象的. That's disgusting enough for me not to want it. XFS was surely a slow-FS on metadata operations, but it has been fixed recently as well. This of course comes at the cost of not having many important features that ZFS provides. however, since last few years we seriously. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. 1. 7. As of version 4. Ext4 seems better suited for lower-spec configurations although it will work just fine on faster ones as well, and performance-wise still better than btrfs in most cases. 6. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. As you can imagine there is not a single and. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. Snapshots, transparent compression and quite importantly blocklevel checksums. EXT4:2. 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. Now today I had a power outage on our office server and I discovered that one file on the JFS volume has been completely corrupted. Sure the snapshot creation and rollback ist faster with btrfs but with ext4 on lvm you have a faster filesystem. 14 ;LOGIN: vOL. Linux 4. I've done a good bit of Kernel dev for Android. The result is a filesystem with an improved. Published very recently by Phoronix, a series of benchmark tests. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. 0 also used ext4. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. CoW filesystems like BtrFS are great and full of advantages, but the performance drop away from XFS is notable. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. Ext4 focuses on high-performance and scalability. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. Storage. which btw you should put in here then as well. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. There are several benchmarks online attempting to compare XFS to ext4 with various RDBMS platforms and tools. 86 1. I was aware that ext4 as a extension of ext3 as an continuation of ext2 has a lot of legacie structures and thus also more likely a higher overhead. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in Ubuntu 18. 3. Although Btrfs lacks stability and maturity as of this writing, it is more feature-rich than EXT4 despite this. . 21 merge window (now known as Linux 5. 15 or newer (Please the same OS using same activating services and same apps!)Recommend. XFS was more fragile, but the issue seems to be fixed. 1829 tps). XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. 2. The fuse and fuseblk file system types are different from traditional file systems (e. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the > latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!파일시스템 비교 (ext4와 xfs) 7. Many benchmarks put EXT4 I/O a little ahead on BTRFS, but we are talking thousanth's of second here. Swap space. The support of the XFS was merged into Linux kernel in around 2002 and In 2009 Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5. Let’s look at what happens if we increase the amount of data copied to about 5 GB. 17 Storage. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. A conventional RAID array is a simple abstraction layer that sits between a filesystem and a set of disks. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. AFAIK, Reiser3 doesn't have dellayed allocation, but it's better than XFS with small files. Then later, I was actually able to convert that from btrfs-raid10 to btrfs-raid1 overnight while in use. XFS: screams with enormous files, fast recovery time. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device:XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. ext4: 1 1 Toshiba. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. 15 FS performance to Linux 3. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. 14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. When running one copy of the SQLite embedded database library, the XFS file-system had a slim lead over NILFS2 and F2FS while EXT4 was the slowest on this Linux 5. Snapraid says if the disk size is below 16TB there are no limitations, if above 16TB the parity drive has to be XFS because the parity is a single file and EXT4 has a file size limit of 16TB. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare. With Btrfs you get self healing, snapshots, copy on write, background file system checks, online defragmentation, and much more. XFS also consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then the Ext3 or Ext4 variants will be.