In Part 1 and Part 2 In this series of articles it became clear that the choice of file system can have an impact on performance.
In the last test, I was able to increase the performance with a little fine-tuning:
The fine-tuning at this point related to the ESX configuration (HBA settings etc.), the ReFS and NTFS volumes were reformatted without the Windows quick format.
The performance differences are no longer quite so noticeable, but they are still there. I have not carried out any more tests with Bitlocker drive encryption because the storage is already encrypted.
So if it's not the speed, then maybe it's the features. Here is a feature comparison between NTFS and ReFS:
http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server-2012/q-what-features-does-ntfs-support-refs-does-not-support
In this article it is made clear where exactly the advantages over NTFS lie:
Of course, there are many factors that can influence performance, and things may look completely different with Windows Server 2016. But I'm sticking with NTFS for the time being. I haven't had to run CHKDSK for years, and in an environment with several Exchange servers, I don't mind if one fails because something goes wrong in the file system. I haven't come across this yet, but you never know. At the moment, performance is more important to me.
Has anyone had any other experiences?