LWN.net Logo

XFS: the filesystem of the future?

XFS: the filesystem of the future?

Posted Jan 21, 2012 0:31 UTC (Sat) by hechacker1 (subscriber, #82466)
Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?

Any thoughts on which FS is better for a CPU starved router? I'm currently using ext4 with "journal_async_commit" and it can barely manage 15MB/s. The USB disk is capable of 30MB/s.

With these XFS changes, perhaps it will work better for cpu limited scenarios?

I did try JFS on it, and it was slightly faster, but it had a bad behavior of having to run fsck on it every time it was powered off (this router tends to get reset a lot). Ext4 in comparison recovers gracefully without needing to do a fsck. Not sure how XFS would respond to that.

The data isn't critical, since it's mostly just used as a shared temp storage.


(Log in to post comments)

XFS: the filesystem of the future?

Posted Jan 21, 2012 7:32 UTC (Sat) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

According to benchmarks from back in the 2.6.36 days, XFS does pretty well:

http://free.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/2.6.36-rc6/large_file_...

XFS: the filesystem of the future?

Posted Jan 21, 2012 21:52 UTC (Sat) by runekock (subscriber, #50229) [Link]

I don't think that the FS will matter much for you. If your CPU is maxed out, it is probably because the USB-driver is inefficient.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds