Why might you want to use XFS? Well, take a look at the benchmarks released this week from Eric Whitney at HP. Short version: XFS is the fastest, scales to multiple threads the best, and uses the least CPU (for this workload).
I used to be ambivalent about recommending XFS, in part because SGI imploded and many of the XFS developers scattered to the winds. But now several of the top XFS developers are working for Red Hat, including:
- Eric Sandeen
- David Chinner
- Christoph Hellwig (who would like you to know that he just contracts for Red Hat sometimes and is definitely not an employee)
Between the three of them, they have written:
- 77% of commits in the last year to fs/xfs/
- 58% of commits in the last 5 years to fs/xfs/
- 62% of commits in the last year to xfsprogs
- 17% of all commits to xfsprogs
So I personally feel pretty confident that Red Hat has the in-house talent to support our customers who want to use XFS.
Counts include merge commits. The date ranges are approximate since I just looked for a commit around the date I wanted and included all the commits in a straight line since that commit, but due to merges, commits aren’t in strict chronological order. The mainline Linux kernel only has accurate commit info back to April 2005. Finally, the git history may be in error; this is part of why it’s so important to get commit attribution correct.
As always, I don’t speak officially for Red Hat in this or any other blog post.