On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 02:19:28AM +0000, Stephan Schmidt wrote:
>my Question was meant for a Debian 9 environment with heavy read/wright
>load and very high requirements towards Performance and data Consistency
Well, that's like asking "which car is the best" unfortunately. There's no
good answer, as it very much depends on your expectations, hardware etc.
Everyone wants good performance, reliability and consistency.
Simply said, if you're on current Linux and you don't have any additional
requirements (like snapshotting), then ext4/xfs are likely your best bet.
There are differences between these two filesystems, but it depends on the
workload, hardware etc. Overall the behavior is pretty close, though. So
either you just go with either of those, or you do some testing with your
application on the actual hardware.
If you need something more advanced (like better snapshotting, etc.) then
maybe ZFS is the right choice for you. It also allos various advanced
configurations with ZIL, L2ARC, ...
On 4/17/19 6:38 PM, Gunther Schadow wrote:
> So looks like XFS won. I like XFS for its ease of use especially when
> Any ideas on how ZFS might do? ZFS is of course so much more flexible.
That would totally depend on your data sets and expectations. If you're
doing a LOT of random inserts/updates/deletes, etc then you would have
to tune the hell out of ZFS along with right caching layers in place.
Same could be said of reads, but if you have a TON of memory in the
server that's greatly mitigated and work well.
If you're looking to warehouse big blobs of data or lots of archive and
reporting; then by all means ZFS is a great choice.
ZFS certainly can provide higher levels of growth and resiliency vs