A variety of reasons. The biggest one for me is stability. XFS has been doing huge filesystems (>50gb) for years. ext4 hasn't. Today, I'd probably trust ext4 to do a 16 TB fs, but I'd still prefer XFS. For larger filesystem, ext4 performance degrades rapidly while XFS continues to scale well. Here's a forum discussing this very topic: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=1200201 Sent from my Nexus 10. On Oct 17, 2013 10:36 PM, "Tony Yarusso" <tonyyarusso at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM, B-o-B De Mars <mr.chew.baka at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Up until now all my current file systems are <= 16TB, > > so ext4 has not been an issue. > > I'm curious why it's an issue beyond that point. This indicates that > ext4 has supported filesystems larger than 16TB for nearly two years: > > http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/e2fsprogs-release.html#1.42 > > And Wikipedia says it now supports volumes up to 1EiB, or > 1,048,576TiB. See also > > https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto#Bigger_File_System_and_File_Sizes > . > > - Tony > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20131018/3e684fa0/attachment.html>