XFS is widely adopted across the industry to run MySQL, but we were interested in looking at EXT4 performance as well. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. Refer to corresponding file system page in case there were performance improvements instructions, e. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Momentum. 0 and today those results are being complemented by the solid-state drive results. See Swap#Performance. Things like snapshots, copy-on-write, checksums and more. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. If you want raw speed, XFS is king. XFS was running the fastest with IOzone. And you might just as well use EXT4. The benchmark results of three most common file systems under Linux environment were given in this paper. The most commonly used are Ext4, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS which is the most recent file system released back in 2018. 5. 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. Ext4 is fast and rock solid, and easily recovered on a desktop machine if things go really bad. • 2 yr. If you end up increasing the size of the box then it's going to become more relevant. Across the three tested RAID modes, EXT4 was performing the worst. The way you describe this workload, I think it is not very demanding. The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. . btrfs: 1. Here are my results. 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. ext4 and also reiserfs store files in a different way. Agree, actually I have a bunch of freebsd for ZFS. 2. After earlier in the week delivering solid-state drive file-system benchmarks in comparing the Linux 3. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. F2FS vs. 1. F2FS vs. On an ssd desktop you will NOT notice a difference in performance between ext4 and xfs. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. Kernel and File Systems. 61 Comments SSD Disk Observations. The ext4 file system mainly enhances the efficiency, reliability, and performance of the Linux Kernel. We believe that btrfs has the correct feature set and roadmap to serve Ceph in the long-term, but. Btrfs came in a distant third place finish for performance from this single NVMe SSD drive benchmark followed by EXT4 and then NILFS2. With the WiredTiger storage engine, using XFS is strongly recommended for data bearing nodes to avoid performance issues that may. 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. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. AnthonyWC commented Dec 15, 2022. I used hdparm and ran the following: sudo hdparm -Tt. 3. El ext4 y xf. The CompileBench performance was mixed. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. Depending on the space in question, I typically end up using both ext4 (on lvm/mdadm) and zfs (directly over raw disks). 86 1. EXT4 vs. When use btrfs it's 35-40 MB/s. There are plenty of benefits for choosing XFS as a file system: XFS works extremely well with large files; XFS is known for its robustness and speed; XFS is particularly proficient at parallel input/output (I/O. ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. 파일 시스템. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. A word of warning about F2FS. No ext4, você pode ativar cotas ao criar o sistema de arquivo ou mais tarde em um sistema de arquivo existente. The observation was that XFS is useful when your machine has multiple cores and fast disk that XFS can utilize. EXT3, EXT4, XFS EXT3 (2001) / EXT4 (2008) – evolution of original Linux file system (ext, ext2,. 0 moved to XFS in 2014. 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. While looking at the filesystem options it seems like BTRFS is a lot more stable than it was the last time I had to install arch so now I am seriously considering using it. 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. Maybe adding Btrfs compression would be negligible outside of storage benchmarks. It is native. The Ext4 File System. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. 4% utilization. Yes. 对于一些文件系统如Ext4等，在硬盘格式化时就全部确定了，而对于XFS则是动态生成的，BtrfS则是更特别的动态实现。. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. 79 1. For bare metal mail server I'd go ZFS all the way tho. advantages. fast recovery, rivals XFS recovery times. Here are a few other differences: Features: Btrfs has more advanced features, such as snapshots, data integrity checks, and built-in RAID support. We recommend EXT4 or XFS. . On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. It was time to do my quarterly disaster recovery drill, which involves bootstrapping my entire system from scratch using my scripts and backups. 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. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. The Infortrend RAID is a 24-disk box arranged as two RAID-6 arrays of 12 disks each, each disk 1 TB. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. El sistema de archivos es mayor de 2 TiB con inodos de 512 bytes. XFS . Observations. >if it will make any differences in the way XFS performs if its built directly on the disk, or built onto of a VMFS partition. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 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. 04, see mkfs. 2070 tps). Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. 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. Generally, ZFS is known for its superior performance in large-scale storage environments, while Btrfs is more performant in smaller-scale deployments. 1 interface. historically with MySQL we always observed better performance and more stable processing on EXT4. At the same time, XFS often required a kernel compile, so it got less attention from end. 1829 tps). We were using the latest 2. Or when it came to testing the single Seagate IronWolf 6TB HDD performance, Btrfs and EXT4 were performing about the same with. BTRFS also had somewhat higher latency than EXT4, meaning. 5 Git kernel snapshot, EXT4, F2FS, Btrfs, and XFS were tested. • PCIe SSD devices designed based on the NVMe specification are called NVMe-based PCIe SSD’s • Provides a scalable host controller interface for devices in various form. . 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. 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. Ability to shrink filesystem. 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 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. logging while EXT4 uses page granularity physical logging. To be honest I'm a little surprised how well Ext4 compared with exFAT ^_^. However benchmarks test quite narrow parameters which may not be reflected by running an OS. 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. 14 vs. Having this opportunity I wanted to put some hard numbers to my previous observations regarding ext4 vs Btrfs performance on my T430 running Qubes OS R4. Increased Performance of ext4 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" 2. XFS is about as mainline as a non-ext filesystem gets under Linux. EXT4 performance is excellent. Also BRTFS compresses the file system using less space compared to EXT4 but again the tradeoff is it uses more computer. 1. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. Both Btrfs and Ext4 have their own advantages. try both and test the speeds for yourself. A execução do comando quotacheck em um sistema de. ago. Here are some of those XFS RAID benchmarks up against Btrfs and. Ticket Spinlocks. Improve this answer. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging. For your SSD, I'd suggest looking at these benchmarks from phorox. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. 4 To 4. EXT4 vs. It presents the. Q0heleth added community triage labels Feb 13, 2023. 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. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. MySQL Performance : XFS -vs- EXT4 Story. So I think you should have no strong preference, except to consider what you are familiar with and what is best documented. Features of the XFS and ZFS. 14 stable. The Ext4 file system is mainly used on Linux, while the NTFS file system is commonly used on Windows, and the HFS+ file system is suitable for macOS. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation of. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. XFS. For storage, XFS is great and. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. 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. 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. Some like zfs. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. EXT4 is still getting quite critical fixes as it follows from commits at kernel. ext4. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. The problem (which i understand is fairly common) is that performance of a single NVMe drive on zfs vs ext4 is atrocious. F2FS vs. Copy link Member. 또한 ext3. 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. You can see several XFS vs ext4 benchmarks on phoronix. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. btrfs: 1. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. read link below. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. From what I read. 6. This results in the clear conclusion that for this data zstd. On SSDs and HDDs, it delivers fast atomic actions and stable values in the IOzone benchmark. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. ext4 is the successor to ext3. One of the primary advantages of ext4 is that it is a journaled file system, meaning that it. Recent File System Benchmarks - BTRFS XFX Ext4 F2FS. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. At 32 threads ext4 was 28% faster (2345 tps vs. Let’s look at what happens if we increase the amount of data copied to about 5 GB. 1. 1. From what I read. Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. Prior to EXT4, in many distributions, EXT3 was the default file-system. The file-systems being benchmarked here are EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs. For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Although use of the Ext4 filesystem is one possibility for performance issues with MongoDB and WiredTiger (particularly under significant write load), there may be other issues affecting your use case. I tested an XFS filesystem on an LVM physical volume vs. XFS scales much better on modern multi-threaded workloads. g. 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. As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. XFS ext4 ext3. 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. First, btrfs is a perfectly cromulent single-disk ext4 replacement. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. But I was more talking to the XFS vs EXT4 comparison. The fuse and fuseblk file system types are different from traditional file systems (e. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. Both ext4 and XFS should be able to handle it. See Core dump#Disabling automatic core dumps. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and. Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. EXT4 I have no experience with, but XFS, despite all the hype, I think is better avoided. EXT4 is better in the general case. which btw you should put in here then as well. As far as I know, the 4k block size is important for such webgui, it makes it faster to open sites (for ex. Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. XFS is a robust and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files (scales to exabytes) and file systems on a single host. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. It provides good performance with SSD and supports the TRIM (and FITRIM) feature to keep good SSD performance over time (this clears unused memory blocks for quick later write access). Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. 0-050600-generic. I use Warp and mc support perf for benchmark. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). - Linux Kernel 5. Momentum. Btrfs native RAID was much faster for sequential writes than EXT4/XFS on Linux Software RAID. Share. checksum verification on each file. Here are some alternatives: XFS. A Seagate FireCuda 520 PCIe 4. The problem with delayed allocation is data security. Hello everyone, The time has come again for me to reinstall arch once more. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. Downside is that it's a slower file system due to it's nature of redundancy. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. Users should contemplate their. Linux's Current File System. ReiserFS: Highly optimal small-file access. The good news is that both ext4 and XFS facilitate excellent performance for database systems. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24 ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. - no encryption. > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, > and both were miles ahead of btrfs. XFS vs. 7 - Btrfs 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. 7 on it. Ext4 file system is the successor to Ext3, and the mainstream file system under Linux. I also have a separate zfs pool for either additional storage or VMs running on zfs (for snapshots). Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. Page 1 of 4. 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. Both cases, a mechanical drive. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. . 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. 36 0. misleading. ext4 is still a good filesystem, since it is rock stable and easy to recover from a crash. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. XFS was surely a slow-FS on metadata operations, but it has been fixed recently as well. XFS is a 64-bit journaling file system known for its high performance and efficient execution of parallel input/output (I/O) operations. The result is a filesystem with an improved. I ran performance benchmarks comparing XFS with EXT4 for MongoDB on AWS EC2 to find out exactly what you were wondering about. 3 with zfs-2. petronasAMG77 • 1 yr. 3. 5k tps vs. But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. Writeback interval and buffer size. 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. Ext4 is also a more traditional file system, while XFS provides more scalability and is better suited for large file systems. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. e2label can be used to change the label on an existing file system. Here is a look at the Linux 5. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. Ext4 파일 시스템. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. There are certainly cases where the rich feature set of ZFS makes it an essential option to consider, most notably. 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. This enables extreme scalability of IO threads, filesystem bandwidth, file and filesystem size when spanning multiple storage devices. g. Btrfs vs. 6. 14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. The XFS file system is an extension of the extent file system. If you buy a modern drive, it will support native trim/discard, have appropriate overprovisioning, and use internal wear leveling by default. 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. Recent improvements to the XFS file system have shown it to have the better performance characteristics for Kafka’s workload without any compromise in stability. The ext4 is an old file system that is the default in several Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. The server I'm working with is:2. Since then, however, ZFS on Linux has progressed a lot and I also learned how to better tune it. 3. 9, 84. 7 - EXT4 vs. 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. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. 68x faster than UFS+J. The purpose of that patch was to help to improve read scalability in direct i/o mode. 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. When XFS was designed, “high performance” meant a. Ext4 is an open-source, enhanced filesystem for Linux OSs that supersedes ext3 in terms of speed, dependability, and expansiveness. The test data shown in the graphs below show modest differences between both. A backup strategy without data integrity protection from the file system or some other mechanism will blindly backup corrupted data if data corruption occurs. Still, the filesystem is constantly called “high performance,” meaning it makes perfect sense to turn to this filesystem for high performance drives. 24. The maximum total size of a ZFS file system is exbibytes minus one byte. Linux 4. Raw-VM and Qcow2-VM Filesystem type: ext4. 5. Memory requirement (even with dedup off) are (relatively) quite high. 0 while today is just a comparison of six file-systems using a traditional HDD. Snapshots, transparent compression and quite importantly blocklevel checksums. The only case where XFS is slower is when creating/deleting a lot of small files. With Bcachefs on its trek towards the mainline Linux kernel, this week I conducted some benchmarks using the very latest Bcachefs file-system code and compared its performance to the mainline Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system competitors on both rotating and solid-state storage. There are two more empty drive bays in the. If possible, use XFS as it generally performs better with MongoDB. 0 solid state drives using other file-systems -- including EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs with Linux 3. I used to format XFS using mkfs. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. Through many years of development, it is one of the most stable file systems. Furthermore, the Ext4 is designed to be backward compatible. Besides interest in seeing ZOL tests (they're already planned upon the ZFS On Linux 0. Btrfs vs. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. The Phoronix Test Suite evaluated software RAID arrays on rotational HDDs using XFS, EXT4 and Btrfs. 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. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. the fact that maximum cluster size of exFAT is 32MB while extends in ext4 can be as long as 128MB. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). Btrfs uses a checksum to ensure that the data doesn’t corrupt, on the other hand, Ext4 doesn’t ensure data integrity. 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. ext3/ext4: Use the barrier=0 mount option to disable barriers. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. F2FS vs. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. First of all, some background history. I installed CentOS 6. This ext4 system has been in use for many years, so it is much improved from previous extensions and has greater bug removal support. XFS is another popular file system for Linux, especially for servers and high-performance applications. Disable core dumps. 1 fell slightly short of the Linux file-system performance. Ext4#Improving performance and XFS#Performance. ext4 has been an improvement to the ext3 file system, which was an improvement over the ext2 file system before it. 7. Unless you're doing something crazy, ext4 or btrfs would both be fine. ZFS, the Zettabyte file system, was developed as part of the Solaris operating system created by Sun Microsystems. Picking a filesystem is not really relevant on a Desktop computer. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. Btrfs is a bit slower with writes because of its Copy-on-write nature, but just as fast when it comes to reads. XFS can sometimes detect the geometry under software RAID, but in case you reshape it or you. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. 3. . ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference Storage : 2019-04-24: FreeBSD ZFS vs. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. To. As Microsoft makes more progress with ReFS on Windows 11, Linux is also getting performance optimizations and improvements on some of its major file systems, namely, F2FS, Btrfs, and EXT4. 9, 97. 3. The impact of. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. Based on these, I'd suggest either F2FS or XFS. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. Features of the XFS and ZFS. See below: XFSYou're welcome. XFS is very well established and changing slowly, and the same can be said for EXT4. This paper analyzes the performance of thee file systems in Linux environment. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance. XFS provides a more efficient data organization system with higher performance capabilities but less reliability than ZFS, which offers improved accessibility as well as greater levels of data integrity. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . 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. The presented results were obtained by testing the performance ext4, xfs.