Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Being a 32-bit file system, FAT32 is limited to a maximum partition size of 32 TB with 8 KB clusters, although the original specifications for the format limited the partition size to 2 TB and current Windows operating systems make it difficult to enable FAT32 partitions larger than 32 GB"

I'm sure its 32GB not 32TB.
 
[citation][nom]billafu[/nom]Enjoyed the article. Sadly, I am still unable to justify spending nearly a dollar per gigabyte for an SSD when HDDs are less than a dime per gig. Maybe when that price difference is a little bit closer.[/citation]It just means you're thinking about SSD's all wrong. Granted, they are storage media but you're paying for performance, not capacity.
 
[citation][nom]acoriano[/nom]When SSD's becomes 0.10€\GB i will buy one for storage data.[/citation]

Why? Are you intending to move you photo collection around real quick on a regular basis, or watch your movie collection in 25k frames/sec?
I was hoping the "when they cost 2$/Gb" comments should be gone by now.
Hell, I want a Ferrari, I just can't afford one; It's getting tiresome...
 


+1, so true
 
one day they'll laugh at the thought that we used rotating media. however, afaic ssd are a technology best suited to CE. phones and cameras, yay, not on the desktop. you're paying a huge premium for a device whose performance deteriorates as it fills up, amplifying the windows 'bit-rot' effect. also, a media device with a limited number of writes to me is just absurd.

as an aside, the editors have written a huge report just to come to the conclusion that the only filesystem that you can use in a modern windows installation is the one you should use. and they took upwards of 6 error-filled pages to come to that conclusion. that's just a device to bring in the advertising.
 
it'll be 5 more years before ssd prices drop to hdd prices level. having said that, i plan to purchase my 1st ssd for my ivy bridge system build at the end of april. it'll be a samsung 830 128 gb for $174.99 ($2.187375/gb). :)
 
[citation][nom]doctorpink[/nom]120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.[/citation]

Many PC users are conscientious buyer buyers, looking for the best bang for the buck and not throwing their money at every new thing that comes out. The price of SSDs still does not justify the performance increase for most, especially with such limited storage space. So don't be such an arrogant prick. Also, please show me an SSD that is $1 per GB. I can't find a single one on Newegg, even with rebates.
 
[citation][nom]notsleep[/nom]it'll be 5 more years before ssd prices drop to hdd prices level. having said that, i plan to purchase my 1st ssd for my ivy bridge system build at the end of april. it'll be a samsung 830 128 gb for $174.99 ($2.187375/gb).[/citation]

I would love to see how you did your math there.
 
Maybe test ext4, XFS and btrfs?

I mean, NTFS is the only filesystem tested that isn't just crap, so guess what the result would be?
 
How does this all apply to formatting for an external 7200rpm USB travel drive connected to a Macbook air that runs both OSX 10.7.4 and Windows 7 64bit in Boot Camp & Parallels? Would exFAT be a good choice since it will read and write in both OS's? It seems the speeds are comparable (at least on SSD)
 
MBR partition code?! And what about users already experiencing NTFS with GPT partitions? UEFI, etc?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom