Re: XFS vs Ext4 redux -- preferences/warnings/etc

On 2019/04/11 06:24, Mladen Gogala wrote:

> On 4/11/19 5:56 AM, Stefan Koehler wrote:
>

>> Hello Rich,
>> one clear recommendation: Go with XFS.

Interesting articles, but their focus is clearly not on data protection (or servers). There is exactly a 0% chance I'd ever mount a Linux filesystem containing business data on my Production ERP boxes without a journal.

I've found Kevin Clossen's experiment from 2012 that seems to conclude that EXT4 (at the time) serialized writes. I'd question the software RAID in his test, but XFS didn't have the throughput problem. But that was 7 years (and 1 major OEL release) ago. https://kevinclosson.net/2012/03/06/yes-file-systems-still-need-to-support-concurrent-writes-yet-another-look-at-xfs-versus-ext4/

I've also found Andre Leibovici's recent SLOB tests using flash storage.  Like just about everywhere else, the conclusion is that XFS outperforms EXT4 for Oracle database loads. However, the tests are done with an open converged system (Datrium), so I'm not sure how that'll translate to a traditional SAN.
http://myvirtualcloud.net/ext4-vs-xfs-vs-asm-vs-asm-oel-which-one-performs-better-taking-it-to-the-next-level/

So, yes, I've been leaning towards XFS. But since I haven't used it on a Production Oracle server of any size, and I got burned by XFS once (probably 15 years ago now?), I had to ask the question. Again. :)

Thanks Mladen and Stefan,
Rich

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l