Another issue is that Dropbox have announced that henceforth they will only support ext4. On 13/10/18 04:09, ~Stack~ wrote: > On 10/12/2018 07:35 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > [snip] >> On SL 7? Why? Is there any reason not to use xfs? I've appreciated the >> ext filesystems, I've known its original author for decades. (He was >> my little brother in my fraternity!) But there's not a compelling >> reason to use it in recent SL releases. > > Sure there is. Anyone who has to mange fluctuating disks in an LVM knows > precisely why you avoid XFS - Shrink an XFS formated LVM partition. Oh, > wait. You can't. ;-) > > My server with EXT4 will be back on line with adjusted filesystem sizes > before the XFS partition has even finished backing up! It is a trivial, > well-documented, and quick process to adjust an ext4 file-system. > > Granted, I'm in a world where people can't seem to judge how they are > going to use the space on their server and frequently have to come to me > needing help because they did something silly like allocate 50G to /opt > and 1G to /var. *rolls eyes* (sadly that was a true event.) Adjusting > filesystems for others happens far too frequently for me. At least it is > easy for the EXT4 crowd. > > Also, I can't think of a single compelling reason to use XFS over EXT4. > Supposedly XFS is great for large files of 30+ Gb, but I can promise you > that most of the servers and desktops I support have easily 95% of their > files under 100M (and I would guess ~70% are under 1M). I know this, > because I help the backup team on occasion. I've seen the histograms of > file size distributions. > > For all the arguments of performance, well I wouldn't use either XFS or > EXT4. I use ZFS and Ceph on the systems I want performance out of. > > Lastly, (I know - single data point) I almost never get the "help my > file system is corrupted" from the EXT4 crowd but I've long stopped > counting how many times I've heard XFS eating files. And the few times > it is EXT4 I don't worry because the tools for recovery are long and > well tested. The best that can be said for XFS recovery tools is "Well, > they are better now then they were." > > To me, it still boggles my mind why it is the default FS in the EL world. > > But that's me. :-) > > ~Stack~ >