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>