, , , ,

Recently, Google announced it would move from ext3 to ext4 and also announced hiring the developer of ext4, Theodore Tso.

Now the technology site Phoronix has benchmarked ext3, ext4, XFS, ReiserFS, and Btrfs (no word on why JFS was not included).

The interesting thing about this set of benchmarks is that it seems to be quite a mixed set of results. Almost every filesystem came in first place at least once.

Another interesting thing is that the tests were done on a solid state SATA drive, the OCZ Agility EX 60GB SSD. One wonders what the tests would show with an IDE hard drive.

I’ve always been partial to XFS, given its capability for on-line expansion, its large capacity, and its reasonable performance. Of course, the targets are continuously moving onward – but XFS has always been respectable. Unfortunately, these benchmarks don’t show it as being the best.

The article recommends using ext3 over ext4 for now, given the loss in filesystem performance with ext4. This is particularly interesting given Google’s choice to migrate from ext3 to ext4; however, their choice was based on the fact that ext3 is showing data loss and they need better protection.

Now if someone would only benchmark OpenVMS ODS-5