Am Dienstag, 13. September 2016, 23:23:08 CEST schrieb Gary Dale: > On 12/09/16 07:20 AM, Leslie S Satenstein wrote: > > Would you not say that xfs is preferred over ext4? In benchmarks and > > recovery exercises, it appears to come out ahead for performance and > > recovery. > > > > The negative aspect of deploying xfs is that once the partition size > > is set, you cannot add or reduce it's size without a reformat of that > > partition. > > > > I am using it on a workstation for /boot, / and /var. My next upgrade > > will include /home. > > That's a different discussion entirely. Since I'm considering switching > from Ext4, the question is which is the best option. XFS has its > devotees and I even used it for a while (I also used ReiserFS for a > while) before returning to the Ext fold. > > When looking for a replacement, I want a file system that is generally > superior to what I am using now. XFS offers good performance but lacks > other modern features like error checking and correction. I wouldn't > rate it as clearly superior to Ext4.
XFS and Ext4 have metadata checksumming. But only BTRFS has data checksumming. A XFS developer from Oracle currently implements back references, deduplication and even more checksumming, but I think its still only metadata checksumming, Heise Open Thorsten Lemhuis wrote about data checksumming instead. I donĀ“t know where this is heading, but at a point in time maybe XFS even gains snapshots. That said there where patches for snapshotting Ext3/4 as well. Of course any of this is off topic here. -- Martin