Post by victorgrant on Mar 28, 2018 2:04:11 GMT -6
Hello,
So a couple people (drag, I think?) labeled XFS as particularly "robust" and fast and, presumably, awesome. OK. This is not an argument, this is a question: if it's more robust than ext4, why are we using ext4 instead of XFS? In what circumstances is ext4 a better pick? In what circumstances is XFS a better pick?
I'm curious because I've never actually tried XFS. For the most part I've shied away from alternative filesystems (xfs, jfs, reiserfs) in Linux over the years, and for the most part I feel like I've been pretty much rewarded for doing so (fewer issues than I see with people playing around with all the "fringe-ish" fs'es).
Any help will be apprecited.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.
References:
arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=1169535
Medical Animated Explainer
Thank you.
So a couple people (drag, I think?) labeled XFS as particularly "robust" and fast and, presumably, awesome. OK. This is not an argument, this is a question: if it's more robust than ext4, why are we using ext4 instead of XFS? In what circumstances is ext4 a better pick? In what circumstances is XFS a better pick?
I'm curious because I've never actually tried XFS. For the most part I've shied away from alternative filesystems (xfs, jfs, reiserfs) in Linux over the years, and for the most part I feel like I've been pretty much rewarded for doing so (fewer issues than I see with people playing around with all the "fringe-ish" fs'es).
Any help will be apprecited.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.
References:
arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=1169535
Medical Animated Explainer
Thank you.