I do not know. I can only point you to the posts of other SNOs who uses xfs: Topics tagged xfs
SNO reported a more slow processing for filewalker and during migration, like in this thread.
We are not talking about Storj Labs, only about the Community. My problem that you suggest to do something, but refuses to provide any examples that it’s working and seems expect that Storj Labs would stretch resources to test any exotic configurations above a standard generic filesystems. It could be possible though, but the priority for such tests is very low, so only help from the Community can move it further to figure out what’s best for storagenode. You did contribution by suggesting usage of some combination of xfs, its tuning and using Lustre, however it could have even more value with the proof of concept. If you do not want to do a PoC - fine, but unlikely it will be tested by Storj Labs, please do not expect this. Maybe someone else from the Community would like to test this configuration and provide their feedback.
My opinion did not change so far - the best FS for Linux is ext4, for Windows is NTFS. All custom configurations may work better, but they are not tested fully and Storj Labs doesn’t have excess resources to test every possible configuration for each FS, so I wouldn’t expect such tests any time soon. This is where the power of the Community plays role - someone suggested something and tried this and got better (worse) results and shared this with other Community members.
However, Storj Labs do perform some tests to find a better way to store data, like mentioned here: