ext4 to specify a file system label. El ext4 y xf. Yes. . I am entirely based on Linux for all my computer hardware and I have formatted all my external harddiscs with Exfat. EXT4 vs. Refer to corresponding file system page in case there were performance improvements instructions, e. ext4 in ext4 (HDD, 945MB): Measured speed: 89. • PCIe SSD devices designed based on the NVMe specification are called NVMe-based PCIe SSD’s • Provides a scalable host controller interface for devices in various form. The Phoronix Test Suite evaluated software RAID arrays on rotational HDDs using XFS, EXT4 and Btrfs. Its also not aligned with the Stratis concept, as that is closer to thin LVM with XFS just providing the top layer. ago. Up to 8 threads xfs was few percent faster (~10% on average). To be honest I'm a little surprised how well Ext4 compared with exFAT ^_^. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. 1. 0, XFS sera le système de fichiers par défaut et non plus ext4. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in Ubuntu 18. 10. ext4 has dellayed allocation and it's better with small files, too. 24. At 64 threads ext4 was even 47% faster (2362 tps vs. Exfat compatibility is excellent (read and write) with Apple AND Microsoft AND Linux. ago. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. This makes Ext4 more suitable for smaller storage needs, while NTFS is better suited for larger data sets. Common Commands for ext3 and ext4 Compared to XFS. Besides the XFS/EXT4/F2FS tests on the Western Digital hard drive, I also repeated the tests on a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SATA 3. Disable core dumps. That means you don't really need to worry about your SSD "wearing out". Given the reignited discussions this week over Btrfs file-system performance stemming from a proposal to switch Fedora on the desktop to using Btrfs, here are some. The charts show sequential reads (top) and writes (bottom) on XFS (left) and EXT4. Also, I found out the sysbench benchmark I used at the time was not a fair choice since the dataset it generates compresses much less than a. EXT4 run a lot slower when we perform same SQL insert test; XFS respond a lot healthier at 2K INSERT + 2K UPDATE while EXT4 only have 59 for both. Large local PCI-E NVMe "scratch" caches on HPC and VFX nodes are exposed via XFS for their incredible performance. . XFS File. If EXT4 is mounted with no barrier option (see. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. If you dig in to its history, you will see SGI was famous for workstations designed for audio and video editing. It was mature and robust. "Open-source" is the primary reason people pick Btrfs over the competition. I was aware that ext4 as a extension of ext3 as an continuation of ext2 has a lot of legacie structures and thus also more likely a higher overhead. ago. 3. EXT4 vs. So its ext4. It is suitable for PC platforms and network. If you need to use it cross-platform you should probably go with either NTFS or ExFAT. XFS allows multi-threaded concurrent journal commit while EXT4 has single threaded serial commit. Filesystems – XFS/ext4/ZFS XFS. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. 7. ext4. 36 or later, with either the XFS or EXT4 filesystem. Exfat is especially recommended for usb sticks and micro/mini SD cards for any device using memory cards. native support doesn't mean that something is "better". Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. Btrfs with its copy-on-write behavior leads to it having a lot of features but at least in its out-of-the-box behavior generally being a fair amount slower than EXT4/F2FS/XFS. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. With the same benchmark, very favorable to XFS, I added a ZFS L2ARC and that completely reversed the situation, more than tripling the ZFS results,. A few days ago I ran some fresh hard drive file-system benchmarks on Linux 4. See Sysctl#Virtual memory for details. So I recreated the benchmark fs as xfs and repeated the sysbench run. XFS is obviously still a good choice despite its age. Utilice. e2label can be used to change the label on an existing file system. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. For really large sequential reads and write EXT4 and XFS are about the same. Each of the following articles are tests on a different hardware platform, the first link is the. If we apply a fix by mounting ext4 with dioread_nolock or use xfs, throughput looks good. 34, NO. EXT4 vs. Seeking around those files which a DB will do may yield different. Using Btrfs, just expanding a zip file and trying to immediately enter that new expanded folder in Nautilus, I am presented with a “busy” spinning graphic as Nautilus is preparing to display the new folder contents. BTRFS is basically the Linux version of ZFS (rather than just ZFS ported to Linux), but it still needs work around RAID. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. Efficient AllocationsWhen I use inotify to look into the activity in the directory where my containers are, in addition to a lot more entries for the XFS-backed system (other files, etc. XFS supports larger file sizes and. ZFS is an amazing filesystem for long term storage, but terrible for performance/gaming. 对于一些文件系统如Ext4等，在硬盘格式化时就全部确定了，而对于XFS则是动态生成的，BtrfS则是更特别的动态实现。. Tested on the SSD were the popular EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems. XFS supports maximum file system size of 8 exbibytes for the 64-bit file system. 04 LTS and Qcow2 VM is CentOS 6. 0 and particularly with F2FS seeing fixes as a result of it being picked up by Google for support on Pixel devices, I was curious to see how the. Small_Light_9964 • 1 yr. I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. That XFS performs best on fast storage and better hardware allowing more parallelism was my conclusion too. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. NTFS. Both cases, a mechanical drive. Performance of the FS usually only matters for some very specific corner cases like high performance databases, huge storage systems or whatnot. With the 32MB random write performance at four threads, ZFS was about 25% faster than Btrfs. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. Una vez que hemos conocido las principales características de EXT4, vamos a hablar sobre Btrfs, el que se conoce como sucesor natural del sistema de archivos EXT4. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the > latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!파일시스템 비교 (ext4와 xfs) 7. First, btrfs is a perfectly cromulent single-disk ext4 replacement. It is because XFS consumes double the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4. XFS ext4 ext3. 04, see mkfs. XFS will generally have better allocation group. XFS . Interestingly ZFS is amazing for. SGI created XFS to handle huge files (xxx MB or more) very well. It appears that ZFS may be a viable option, but do bear in mind to disable compression and encryption as they may impact performance. Tips: You can mention users to notify them: @username You can use Markdown to format your question. Application start up time benchmark and Sqlite benchmark are more representative of real world performance. Benchmarking EXT4 vs XFS for that many files, EXT4 doesn't come close. Here is a look at the Linux 5. Updating 1 million files takes ages. Another test: everything is the same, upgraded kernel to 5. Additionally, XFS supports standard SSD. 7. It is faster with larger files. This post was remaining in stand-by for a long time, specially that I was expecting that observed issues will be fixed soon. Honestly I wasn't aware of the huge amount of extends still created - that explains a bit. Short answer: under GNU/Linux, you should use a GNU/Linux native file system, such as ext4, XFS or btrfs, as your root partition, for stability and security. For really big data, you’d probably end up looking at shared storage, which by default means GFS2 on RHEL 7, except that for Hadoop you’d use HDFS or GlusterFS. The Infortrend RAID is a 24-disk box arranged as two RAID-6 arrays of 12 disks each, each disk 1 TB. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. Filesystems: Ext4 is the most common Linux filesystem (well maintained). For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems, including ZFS On Linux. I used to format XFS using mkfs. Continue readingWindows has always been terribly slow to update, say, all file permissions in a large directory structure. If you're on HDD and you need the ability to shrink the fs, then use EXT4, but you lose any COW benefits. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. at least thin-LVM as storage type is something that people might use to provide the guests. Filesystem benchmarks with EXT4, XFS and ZFS | GCore GmbH Linux filesystem benchmarks EXT4, XFS and ZFS compared START Help Filesystems Home. When properly tuned, both introduce very little impact to performance compared to RAW while bringing valuable features to bear. 3. 1 interface. XFS is a robust and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files (scales to exabytes) and file systems on a single host. This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that helps you make an informed decision. 0 SSD for some reference data of the relative F2FS vs. ext4 with m=0 ext4 with m=0 and T=largefile4 xfs with crc=0 mounted them with: defaults,noatime defaults,noatime,discard defaults,noatime results show really no difference between first two, while plotting 4 at a time: time is around 8-9 hours. To organize that data, ZFS uses a flexible tree in which each new system is a child file of a previous system. The per-second throughput varies roughly between 5k and 9k tps—not great, not terrible. XFS With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. It has been suggested that ZFS may not be optimal for fread/fwrite operations, and it may be advisable to utilize ZFS for non-root directories while utilizing ext4 for the remainder of the system for optimal. Notes[ edit] ^ IBM introduced JFS with the initial release of AIX OS/2 Warp. ntfs support would too, and would avoid the 4 gig file size limit, and limit of disk partitions over 32gig that fat32 doesn't support. xfs -l size=64m (notes from The performance is what you would expect for a linux kernel to mount a drive. Between EXT4 and XFS which file system is better when an application uses multiple threads to read/write large amount of small files on a SSD. For this reason, I took the time to extend the same benchmark to Oracle ASM (Automatic Storage Management) and also to Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL). Further, EXT4 is more time-tested, and it's arguably the "default" Linux filesystem, so it has points for reliability. ext4, reiserfs etc. It provides an unlimited subdirectory. 2070 tps). Also, it performs better on "server loads" (many parallel requests). 1. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. Performance numbers shows that the XFS filesystem handles sequential writes better than the EXT4 filesystem for block sizes 256B, 4KiB, and 8KiB. 2) (surprisingly, the loopback benchmark looks better than the raw-disk benchmark, presumably because of the smaller size of the loopback device, thus less time is spent on the actual sync-to-disk) Benchmark setupDependending on the hardware, ext4 will generally have a bit better performance. micro server to make it worth it. For large sequential reads and writes XFS is a little bit better. Fragmentation issue English Table of Contents Types of File Systems Local File Systems Overview The XFS File System The Ext File System Family Ext4 File System Choosing a Local File System Network File Systems Shared Storage File Systems Choosing Between Network and Shared Storage File Systems Conclusion Linux 5. In general, Ext3 or 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 filesExt4 is the default file system on most Linux distributions for a reason. Now there are a few others that are really interesting for SSD/NVMe, such as F2FS, XFS, etc. For example, an XFS file system's size can be increased, but it cannot reduced. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. ) – improvements, bugfixes. So logically, mainline Linux is more mature. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. You're going to run out of CPU and Memory long before disk reads/writes are going to start slowing you down. And then I have formatted them with ext4, XFS and BTRFS. The ext4 filesystem supports larger files than its predecessor and can store up to 1 exbibyte (1. It scales with a number of controller replicas, which can bring extra. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. 6. I've read and have anecdotally (not scientific and could be affected by other things) experienced Btrfs being slower than ext4. AIM7 Benchmark For those thinking of playing with Ubuntu 19. Updating 1 million files takes ages. 6. Btrfs remained in the lead, this time when running Threaded I/O Tester's random write test with four 32MB threads. HDFS on ext3 has been publicly tested on the Yahoo cluster, which makes it the safest choice for the underlying file system. The following table summarizes the key performance differences:Funny you mention the lack of planning. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. Each volume is like a single disk file. – in the case of NVMe and regular ext4 with kernel 5. I will use Ext4 until something more viable with at least the same level of stability takes its place. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. Performance is a QCOW2 vs RAW thing, not ext4 vs LVM (which adds another layer on top of ext4). what kind of improved performance do you get with these tweaks vs a vanilla EXT4? –. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive. XFS Storage : 2019-01-07: FreeBSD ZFS vs. Conclusion. Besides the XFS/EXT4/F2FS tests on the Western Digital hard drive, I also repeated the tests on a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SATA 3. The XFS one on the other hand take around 11-13 hours!ZFS vs EXT4 for Host OS, and other HDD decisions. Overall, except for application launch time, benchmark results show that ZFS is the slowest file system in terms of read and write speed due to its COW operating type, while EXT4 is usually the fastest system. It's not the most cutting-edge file system, but that's good: It means Ext4 is rock-solid and stable. It uses mount point into /var/lib/longhorn with a standard filesystem (ext4 or xfs). The XFS is a high-performance 64-bit journaling file system. The only case where XFS is slower is when creating/deleting a lot of small files. If you are concerned about your data integrity, as you clearly are, then use ZFS. 7 - EXT4 vs. 2 SSD as yesterday's testing and using the same 4. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. XFS File. 6. In general, Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses. A 3TB / volume and the software in /opt routinely chews up disk space. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. Writeback interval and buffer size. EXT4, XFS and ZFS comparison. F2FS vs. It's an improved version of the older Ext3 file system. 3. Performance: Ext4 performs better in everyday tasks and is faster for small file writes. But yeah, it's (BTRFS) a more complex filesystem with a bottomless pit of asterisks and gotchas attached to it, EXT4 is much more limited in scope and much simpler from a design perspective. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. XFS sort donc grand vainqueur de cette comparaison avec ext4, et je ne peux que vous encourager à l’utiliser si vous voulez exploiter la base LEGI. 0 and particularly with F2FS seeing fixes as a result of it being picked up by Google for support on Pixel devices, I was curious to see how the current popular. Comparison of archive formats. EXT4/XFS achieve higher throughput (~7. Extents File System, or XFS, is a 64-bit, high-performance journaling file system that comes as default for the RHEL family. Btrfs vs. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. I just got my first home server thanks to a generous redditor, and I'm intending to run Proxmox on it. XFS is better in general with WT, as the MongoDB production notes suggest. XFS, EXT4) have better tools available for Linux, for recovery and maintenance, and probably a more complete implementation. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. Many servers are running linux with two mirrored harddisks (RAID-1) to prevent data loss in case of a disk failure. It is a rock-solid option since it has been around for long, bringing with it all the years of. But there are allocation group differences: Ext4 has user-configurable group size from 1K to 64K blocks. Latency for both XFS and EXT4. In Summary, ZFS, by contrast with EXT4, offers nearly unlimited capacity for data and metadata storage. Although XFS is good, in practice I've found ext4 to be slightly faster. but rather comparable to the usage of md-raid underneath or LVM. LVM adds another layer which definitely does not make it more reliable. As a general rule you've not really got enough space on a t2. Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 file system variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. fast recovery, rivals XFS recovery times. From what I read. My previous article on, EXT4 vs XFS for Oracle, generated some commentary both here in my blog and on Reddit. brown2green. but I'd also like to know which fs can survive a power hit better. The ZFS file system combines a volume manager and file. XFS Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 7 January 2019. 0 mainline kernel and using. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033-2EE) hard drives and the. XFS: Use the nobarrier mount option to disable barriers. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. It was created as a successor to the ext3 file system and offers improved performance, reliability, and scalability. 98 Toshiba. XFS scales much better on modern multi-threaded workloads. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. Probably those edge cases are not visible on an external USB hard drive, could be visible with external SSDs on a USB3. Sorted by: 3. 36 both EXT4 and XFS are – reliable file systems with a journal – proven by time and many production. XFS. This enables extreme scalability of IO threads, filesystem bandwidth, file and filesystem size when spanning multiple storage devices. XFS and EXT4 are common low-overhead / performance options, btrfs. The reason is the design of XFS. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. The maximum supported size for Ext4 in RHEL 7 is 16TB compared to 500TB in XFS. With the initial create test in the compile benchmark, the performance of ZFS was over 3. ext4 is not recommended. 3 MB/s (min 82. If Btrfs and EXT4 aren’t cutting it for you or aren’t supported by your choice of distro, there are a few other popular choices for file systems. Linux EXT4/Btrfs RAID With Twenty SSDs Storage : 2018-12-14: Linux RAID Benchmarks With EXT4 + XFS Across Four Samsung NVMe SSDs Storage : 2018-08-24 ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. ZFS, the Zettabyte file system, was developed as part of the Solaris operating system created by Sun Microsystems. if date corruption from power loss is an issue with btrfs. In conclusion, it is clear that xfs and zfs offer different advantages depending on the user’s needs. XFS vs. Therefore for optimal performance, in most cases you can just follow #Creation. XFS is a mature file system as well, but I don't like the way its implemented in unRAID - especially for multi-honed use. The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. Over time, these two filesystems have grown to serve very similar needs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Performance Features" Collapse section "2. I've never had an issue with either, and currently run btrfs + luks. all kinds for nice features (like extents, subsecond timestamps) which ext3 does not have. This time around, ext4 has managed > to get a significantly faster result than xfs. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. ZFS is not yet ready. When a copy-on-write is needed, the driver searches through the image's layers to find the right file, starting from the topmost layer. It will make difference when there are other VMs on the same VMFS datastore. there were many tentatives to bring XFS on front, but, again, historically, there were always some issues as soon as workload became IO-bound. At 16 threads it was a draw (2036 tps vs. From this several things can be seen: The default compression of ZFS in this version is lz4. Ext4 파일 시스템. This can be achieved by various means, including copying data back and. ext4: 1 1 Toshiba. F2FS vs. RAID Support. Join our dynamic network today! Performance Test (Btrfs, ext4, f2fs and xfs) on Linux. However, unlike Extended 4, it is not possible to disable journaling, thus it can be iffy to use on an SSD. XFS had the best write performance by a significant margin with sequential writes up to 156 MB/s faster than EXT4. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. Btrfs lacks maturity and stability at the time of this writing but is more feature-rich compared to EXT4. 9, 97. 7. When running MongoDB in production on Linux, you should use Linux kernel version 2. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. An external ext4 disk, mounted by WSL2 as a bare drive is for all intents and purposes a. brown2green. Use the -L flag of mkfs. Picking a filesystem is not really relevant on a Desktop computer. 출처 : Red Hat CUSTOMER PORTAL. Thus, if those who rely on CPU-bound workload with little concurrency work better and faster using Ext3 or Ext4. At 16 threads it was a draw (2036 tps vs. ), the better for efficient disk usage, in case there's a lot of small files on that partition. As you can see from the results, the XFS filesystem allows for better writing capabilities to an SSD device. Posted by Dimitri Kravtchuk on Wed 13 May 2020 20:15 UTC Tags: innodb, Benchmarks, xfs, ext4, MySQL, Performance, DoubleWrite. Each of these file systems has its own way of organizing data, merits, and demerits. 7. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example:For this round of testing on a Dell PowerEdge server with dual EPYC 7601 processors were using four Samsung 860 EVO SATA 3. So it could be a. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. There are plenty of benefits for choosing XFS as a file system: XFS works extremely well with large files; XFS is known for its robustness and speed; XFS is particularly proficient at parallel input/output (I/O. NTFS Benchmarks Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4. Let’s look at what happens if we increase the amount of data copied to about 5 GB. Basically, LVM with XFS and swap. 4 HDD RAID performance per his request with Btrfs, EXT4, and XFS while using consumer HDDs and an AMD Ryzen APU setup that could work out for a NAS type low-power system for anyone else that may be interested. Multimedia Sanctuaries: With large files as daily bread, ext4 is indispensable. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. Having this opportunity I wanted to put some hard numbers to my previous observations regarding ext4 vs Btrfs performance on my T430 running Qubes OS R4. SSD Filesystem: XFS vs F2FS vs Btrfs vs Bcachefs vs ext4 . 10 using a common NVMe solid-state drive. XFS vs. Januar 2020. Docker supports several storage drivers, using a pluggable architecture. Stripe size and width. A word of warning about F2FS. If this were ext4, resizing the volumes would have solved the problem. These days, you just pick the filesystem you need for the device. g. For personal and SOHO use, EXT4 is the most commonly used file system in Linux systems. I would recommend choosing between ext4 and xfs filesystems. Between 2T and 4T on a single disk, any of these would probably have similar performance. org's git. Small example: One plus 7 Pro has the same UFS 3. read link below. 0 causes performance drop in ~30-80%. On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 08:59:13PM +0000, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > What would be the best filesystem to run PostgreSQL on, in Terms of Performance > and data Integrity? Uh, which operating system? If it is Linux, many people like ext4 or xfs. On a slow Linux box with an ext4 filesystem, the same operation takes less than a second. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind. I used to format XFS using mkfs. See below: XFSYou're welcome. xfs: 0. Figure 3 - Using psync engine with FIO* tool. ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging. EXT4 is still getting quite critical fixes as it follows from commits at kernel. For large block sizes, such as 64KiB, both filesystems are on par. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. XFS, like Ext4, is a journaling filesystem. F2FS vs. In sequential read performance, Btrfs and Bcachefs were terribly slow on the HDD while on the SSD Bcachefs was the slowest, just behind XFS while Btrfs and F2FS were competing for the. checksum verification on each file. Here are a few other differences: Features: Btrfs has more advanced features, such as snapshots, data integrity checks, and built-in RAID support. ZFS is a single file system that creates sub-volumes when needed. I use lvm snapshots only for the root partition (/var, /home and /boot are on a different partitions) and I have a pacman hook that does a snapshot when doing an upgrade, install or when removing packages (it takes about 2 seconds). So I installed a new Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSD!! I previously had a Sandisk SSD formatted with ext4, just since it was the most stable (IMO) a few years back.