Taking the silver medal, ext3 impresses in the IOzone benchmark. After you have read the storage driver overview, the next step is to choose the best storage driver for your workloads. Btfs not meant to replace ext4, they are in a different category, ext4 is simple, old and stable while btrfs brings new ideas and goes into very different direction. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. Here is a look at the Linux 5. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. 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. ZFS, Tux3, and Reiser4 weren't tested in. With the initial create test in the compile benchmark, the performance of ZFS was over 3. IOSTAT also showing EXT4 was at 98. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. Benchmark of Ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS With PostgreSQL Database benchmark on a VPS, using several filesystem and configuration options. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. #6. For facilitating this large file-system performance comparison was the Phoronix Test Suite. Not just permissions, but moving them or getting file sizes, too. EXT4 vs. XFS vs EXT4!This is a very common question when it comes to Linux filesystems and if you’re looking for the difference between XFS and EXT4, here is a quick summary:. EXT4 on Ubuntu 19. ZFS brings robustness and stability, while it avoids the corruption of large files. Besides interest in seeing ZOL tests (they're already planned upon the ZFS On Linux 0. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. 2) (surprisingly, the loopback benchmark looks better than the raw-disk benchmark, presumably because of the smaller size of the loopback device, thus less time is spent on the actual sync-to-disk) Benchmark setupDependending on the hardware, ext4 will generally have a bit better performance. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. Januar 2020. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. This of course comes at the cost of not having many important features that ZFS provides. 0 solid state drives using other file-systems -- including EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs with Linux 3. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. 98 Toshiba. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. 1 interface. Windows users as well. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일. ReiserFS: Highly optimal small-file access. 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. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. Picking a filesystem is not really relevant on a Desktop computer. 현재 Ext4는 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6의 기본 파일 시스템으로 단일 파일 및 파일 시스템 모두에서 최대 16 TB 크기 까지 지원합니다. Results are cached to accelerate the process next time. I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. 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. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. Many benchmarks put EXT4 I/O a little ahead on BTRFS, but we are talking thousanth's of second here. However, LVM can provide great performance as well, especially when used with specific (good-performing) filesystems like XFS or Ext4. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. Tested on the SSD were the popular EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems. 4% utilization. Because of that, the Ext4 file system is very stable. With the WiredTiger storage engine, use of XFS is strongly recommended to avoid performance issues that may occur. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. , Ext4 or XFS): they present whole families of file systems. First of all, some background history. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. On lower thread counts, it’s as much as 50% faster than EXT4. And you can still install everything besides the distro binaies to the external drive You can do this. Replica set members can definitely use different filesystems -- members aren't even aware of what filesystems are in use by their peers. F2FS vs. 5 I/o scalability From day one, XFS has been designed to deal with high-performance disk subsystems, especially striped disk arrays with large aggregated bandwidth. Ext4 파일 시스템. NTFS Linux file-system benchmarks by Michael Larabel for a future article on Phoronix. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. EXT4 is the successor of EXT3, the most used Linux file system. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. NTFS. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. Here are a few other differences: Features: Btrfs has more advanced features, such as snapshots, data integrity checks, and built-in RAID support. BTRFS is newer, and the performance is not as good in many cases, but it is not far off. Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, and NILFS2 were tested on a Linux 5. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. exFAT is an older filesystem added into Windows in 2006. Yes, both BTRFS and ZFS have advanced features that are missing in EXT4. Here are my results. 5. The reason is the design of XFS. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. XFS is a high-performance file system. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. 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. XFS uses the copy of the update for journal commit while EXT4 uses the original page cache entry for journal com-mit. I've done a good bit of Kernel dev for Android. Notes[ edit] ^ IBM introduced JFS with the initial release of AIX OS/2 Warp. 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. 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. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. With the PostMark disk benchmark, XFS and Btrfs were slightly. 1 Answer. 6-pve1. As the load increased, both of the filesystems were limited by the throughput of the underlying hardware, but XFS still maintained its lead. Between 2T and 4T on a single disk, any of these would probably have similar performance. 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. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. Search Performance Test Btrfs Ext4 F2fs And Xfs On Linuxtrade goods, offerings, and more in your community area. 3. Ext3:according to some benchmark charts i've seen, btrfs has measurably worse performance than ext4. Ext4 is the evolution of the most used Linux filesystem, Ext3. Le système de fichiers ext4 est toujours pris en charge par Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 et peut être sélectionné au moment de l'installation. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. In this case, Proxmox will not fully allocate the space so you get a thin provisioning region that it allocates chunks of for VMs (and then puts a file system on). There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. 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. 4 usage of the XFS file system. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. I'm pretty sure some of the higher performance ones. ext4 is the successor to ext3. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. Each volume is like a single disk file. ZFS, the Zettabyte file system, was developed as part of the Solaris operating system created by Sun Microsystems. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features like extent blocking mapping, dynamic allocation inode, and defragmentation. A backup strategy without data integrity protection from the file system or some other mechanism will blindly backup corrupted data if data corruption occurs. • 2 yr. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. 88. Hello everyone, The time has come again for me to reinstall arch once more. for data security and integrity zfs is the best. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. 2010’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. XFS is a high-performance, journaling file system designed for high scalability. SQL Server supports both ext4 and XFS filesystems to host the database, transaction logs, and additional files such as checkpoint files for in-memory OLTP in SQL Server. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. ext4 is the safe choice that almost anyone. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. Basically, LVM with XFS and swap. Sorted by: 3. 14 file-system performance comparison with a traditional hard drive. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. F2FS vs. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. F2FS vs. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. It is strongly recommended not to reshape the raid; creating a new array with the same number of data disks and adding that with LVM. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. I am leaning towards F2FS since its designed for flash memory, made by Samsung,. 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. 7 Average speed : 87. xfs: 0. The compression ratio of gzip and zstd is a bit higher while the write speed of lz4 and zstd is a bit higher. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" 2. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. Tested for this comparison were Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, and F2FS from an SSD while running with the Linux 4. (Obviously we can't use Stratis itself unless it supports a mode that accounts for the top layer being controlled by domUs. User quotas for each shared folder. Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. 18. F2FS vs. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. 2. EXT4 and Btrfs tended to be the slowest by far for start-up times with these particular tests. ) – 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. ago. List of archive formats. If you think that you need. A execução do comando quotacheck em um sistema de. Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. Ext4 limits the number of inodes per group to control fragmentation. XFS supports larger file sizes and. If you plan to use it exclusively on Linux, stick with a Unix file system, such as XFS or EXT4. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. Honestly I wasn't aware of the huge amount of extends still created - that explains a bit. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. XFS vs. btrfs: 1. It has proven itself over and over again across many terabytes and countless thousands (or perhaps millions) of files written on a wide variety of my HDDs and SSDs in various LUKS/LVM and non-LVM setups over the past decade. Recommended for general use. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. BTRFS vs EXT4 speed and compression. ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging. A word of warning about F2FS. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. As long as filesystem journaling is concerned, XFS adopts far more so-04-22-2016 02:13 AM. For an average user the only thing that really matters are the special features like checksums, journaling, snapshots and so on but you. The Phoronix Test Suite evaluated software RAID arrays on rotational HDDs using XFS, EXT4 and Btrfs. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. ext4 is the default file system used for most Linux installations. AFAIK conclusion 2 is true: ext2/ext3/ext4 are drivers that share a significant part of their code. if date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. From what I read. The problem (which i understand is fairly common) is that performance of a single NVMe drive on zfs vs ext4 is atrocious. com While Ext4 had good overall performance, ReiserFS was extreme fast at reading sequential files. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. 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. In many ways, Ext4 is a deeper improvement over Ext3 than Ext3 was over Ext2. It can store large files and has advanced features as compared to Ext2 and Ext3. The Ext4 File System. XFS . It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. Its mobo has older sata 3gb/s (benchmark showed that ssd bottlenecked there) and only 4gb of DDR2, with windows installed. As for performance, given sufficient RAM ZFS performance for me is anywhere from close to ext4 to surpassing ext4, depending on memory, available pool space, and compressibility of data. advantages. Another interesting result is that XFS seems to have improved on SSDs between kernels 3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" Collapse section "2. The maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. 3. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. Both cases, a mechanical drive. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. Ext3 was mostly about adding journaling to Ext2, but Ext4 modifies important data structures of the filesystem such as the ones destined to store the file data. checksum verification on each file. F2FS vs. They added the use of extents (with usual size of around 1MB) to improve good performance in handling big files. Given. But I was more talking to the XFS vs EXT4 comparison. Each of these file systems has its own way of organizing data, merits, and demerits. 4935 2026 MB/s. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. 1. xfs man page for additional information) 1: Example /proc/mdstat file with missing device: It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). The test results show that the Galaxy Note 10 performs better than the one plus 7 Pro in terms of random and SQLite write speed. With Btrfs you get self healing, snapshots, copy on write, background file system checks, online defragmentation, and much more. ext4 has better performance with large files. Both filesystems provide COW but XFS fragments less (and it's data cow only so no snapshots, only reflinks). however, since last few years we seriously addressed the problems. F2FS vs. 5k tps, so ~20% increase), but the jitter is clearly much higher. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. 2, and 4. XFS performance there for flash storage where this file-system is designed. Partitioning - improve performance, NTFS vs EXT4 will not gain you much if any better performance, it will allow you to use extra chars with files/folders naming and much bigger single file sizes. These are some performance tests on a Infortrend EonStor RAID system, attached via a LSI22320RB-F scsi HBA card, also known as LSI22320-R. Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. MySQL Performance : XFS -vs- EXT4 Story. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. After a week of testing Btrfs on my laptop, I can conclude that there is a noticeable performance penalty vs Ext4 or XFS. But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. It requires an ext4 or xfs backing filesystem. In practice, it does not become a problem since it only occurs if remaining space is only a few blocks. 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. . I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. EXT4 lacks more robust features but is stable and well-supported on all Linux operating systems. The fastest for the SATA/USB tests was XFS followed quickly by EXT4 and then F2FS. I think in many ways btrfs is the better filesystem, but I seem to have noticed that it takes longer to copy data than on ext4. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID. e. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. Posts: 5,135. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. 6. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. Try to reformat that partition with the smallest block size: mkfs. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. EXT4 vs. Ext4 is limited to a maximum file size of 16 TB, while NTFS can handle up to 256 TB worth of data. The result is a filesystem with an improved. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. It appears that ZFS may be a viable option, but do bear in mind to disable compression and encryption as they may impact performance. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning. 61 CommentsIn some ways, btrfs simply seeks to supplant ext4, the default filesystem for most Linux distributions. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. 1601 tps). ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of subvolumes is nice too, rather than having to partition). ext4 파일 시스템은 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5에서 사용 가능한 기본 ext3 파일 시스템의 확장된 버전입니다. ext4. 7 - EXT4 vs. The smaller the block size (1024 bytes, p. ZFS 101—Understanding ZFS storage and performance. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. g. This is due to XFS's performance-oriented design. 3. Because, firstly, it does not do data journalling or "ordered writing" and in a crash/reset you end up with random data (probably top secret files erased earlier) in your new files. EXT4 vs. In a significant data corruption, Ext2 and Ext3 file systems are more possible and easy to recover data due to their data redundancy compared with Ext4. ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. XFS has features that make it suitable for very large file systems, supporting files up to 8EiB in size. Abstract—The benchmark results for three most common file systems under Linux environment, ext4, xfs, and btrfs, used as guest file systems, were given in this paper. Fast Transactions: XFS provides the benefits of a journaling file system without the hit to performance by leveraging tree structures for fast search and space allocations. XFS tends to perform better for systems that run on higher capacity. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. 0 mainline kernel and using the stock mount options. e. I used to format XFS using mkfs. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. ext3 is the most common format. Linux 5. Abstract and Figures. ZFS is not yet ready. Small example: One plus 7 Pro has the same UFS 3. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. And you might just as well use EXT4. 3. 7 - EXT4 vs. For really big data, you’d probably end up looking at shared storage, which by default means GFS2 on RHEL 7, except that for Hadoop you’d use HDFS or GlusterFS. It has lower performance than tried and true ext4 but that is the cost to pay for the features it has. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. Tenga en cuenta que el uso de inode32 no afecta a los inodos que ya están asignados con números de 64 bits. Running on an x570 server board with Ryzen 5900X + 128GB of ECC RAM. 1. I installed CentOS 6. If you dig in to its history, you will see SGI was famous for workstations designed for audio and video editing. 15 FS performance to Linux 3. 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. I usually use ext4 on the root (OS) volume along with some space for VMs (that can be run on lvm/ext4). Btrfs came in a distant third place finish for performance from this single NVMe SSD drive benchmark followed by EXT4 and then NILFS2. XFS vs ext4 performanceHelpful? Please support me on Patreon: thanks & praise to God, and with thanks to the many. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. which btw you should put in here then as well. EXT4 run a lot slower when we perform same SQL insert test; XFS respond a lot healthier at 2K INSERT + 2K UPDATE while EXT4 only have 59 for both. 1. 0 and particularly with F2FS seeing fixes as a result of it being picked up by Google for support on Pixel devices, I was curious to see how the. 14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. 1829 tps). To. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. 6. Vide. Ext4 offers extra safety measures, including AES-256. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. This time around, ext4 has managed > to get a significantly faster result than xfs. English Table of Contents Types of File Systems Local File Systems Overview The XFS File System The Ext File System Family Ext4 File System Choosing a Local File System. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. I used a Dell R630 machine with two E5-2699 CPUs in it. We looked into the performance of popular filesystems with this configuration. Btrfs is a big leap past ext4 and XFS because it supports features such as: Copy-on-write; Subvolumes, snapshots, and rollbacks; Online defragmentationFollowing the recent Btrfs RAID: Native vs. 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. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. 7. I have a RHEL7 box at work with a completely misconfigured partition scheme with XFS. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. Besides the XFS/EXT4/F2FS tests on the Western Digital hard drive, I also repeated the tests on a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SATA 3. doc_willis • 2 yr. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. 3. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. 0 moved to XFS in 2014. 6. ext3/ext4: Use the barrier=0 mount option to disable barriers. EXT4 is better in the general case. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. 5x faster than the common BSD UFS+J/UFS+S file-systems. 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. Ext4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. ZFS is a filesystem and LVM combined enterprise storage solution with extended protection vs data corruption. – in the case of SATA/SSD, the ext4 scalability issue has an impact on tps rate after 256 threads and drop is 10-15%. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. NTFS.