Chapter 1. Overview of available file systems

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 supports a variety of file systems (FS). Different types of file systems solve different kinds of problems, and their usage is application specific. At the most general level, available file systems can be grouped into the following major types:

Local file systems are file systems that run on a single, local server and are directly attached to storage.

For example, a local file system is the only choice for internal SATA or SAS disks, and is used when your server has internal hardware RAID controllers with local drives. Local file systems are also the most common file systems used on SAN attached storage when the device exported on the SAN is not shared.

All local file systems are POSIX-compliant and are fully compatible with all supported Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases. POSIX-compliant file systems provide support for a well-defined set of system calls, such as read(), write(), and seek().

From the application programmer’s point of view, there are relatively few differences between local file systems. The most notable differences from a user’s perspective are related to scalability and performance. When considering a file system choice, consider how large the file system needs to be, what unique features it should have, and how it performs under your workload.

XFS is a highly scalable, high-performance, robust, and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files and file systems on a single host. It is the default file system in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. XFS was originally developed in the early 1990s by SGI and has a long history of running on extremely large servers and storage arrays.

The features of XFS include:

XFS has a relatively low performance for single threaded, metadata-intensive workloads: for example, a workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread.

The ext4 file system is the fourth generation of the ext file system family. It was the default file system in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.

The ext4 driver can read and write to ext2 and ext3 file systems, but the ext4 file system format is not compatible with ext2 and ext3 drivers.

ext4 adds several new and improved features, such as:

The extent-based metadata and the delayed allocation features provide a more compact and efficient way to track utilized space in a file system. These features improve file system performance and reduce the space consumed by metadata. Delayed allocation allows the file system to postpone selection of the permanent location for newly written user data until the data is flushed to disk. This enables higher performance since it can allow for larger, more contiguous allocations, allowing the file system to make decisions with much better information.

File system repair time using the fsck utility in ext4 is much faster than in ext2 and ext3. Some file system repairs have demonstrated up to a six-fold increase in performance.

XFS is the default file system in RHEL. This section compares the usage and features of XFS and ext4.

To choose a file system that meets your application requirements, you need to understand the target system on which you are going to deploy the file system. You can use the following questions to inform your decision:

If both your server and your storage device are large, XFS is the best choice. Even with smaller storage arrays, XFS performs very well when the average file sizes are large (for example, hundreds of megabytes in size).

If your existing workload has performed well with ext4, staying with ext4 should provide you and your applications with a very familiar environment.

The ext4 file system tends to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. It performs better on limited bandwidth (less than 200MB/s) and up to around 1000 IOPS capability. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster.

XFS consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then ext4 will be faster. In general, ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger files.

You cannot shrink an XFS file system. If you need to be able to shrink the file system, consider using ext4, which supports offline shrinking.

In general, Red Hat recommends that you use XFS unless you have a specific use case for ext4. You should also measure the performance of your specific application on your target server and storage system to make sure that you choose the appropriate type of file system.

Network file systems, also referred to as client/server file systems, enable client systems to access files that are stored on a shared server. This makes it possible for multiple users on multiple systems to share files and storage resources.

Such file systems are built from one or more servers that export a set of file systems to one or more clients. The client nodes do not have access to the underlying block storage, but rather interact with the storage using a protocol that allows for better access control.

Shared storage file systems, sometimes referred to as cluster file systems, give each server in the cluster direct access to a shared block device over a local storage area network (SAN).

When choosing between network and shared storage file systems, consider the following points:

Red Hat recommends that you use network file systems unless you have a specific use case for shared storage file systems. Use shared storage file systems primarily for deployments that need to provide high-availability services with minimum downtime and have stringent service-level requirements.

Volume-managing file systems integrate the entire storage stack for the purposes of simplicity and in-stack optimization.