Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

[pschmid]

SSDs serve up data quickly, and prices are low enough that some enthusiasts may want SSDs for data storage. Does the file system you use matter? We compare performance between FAT32, NTFS, and the newer exFAT file systems on two popular SSD architectures.

Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance? : Read more

 

[aznshinobi]

Those SSD drives.... *drool* Wish I could afford them.

 

[neon neophyte]

I remember the crossing from Fat32 to NTFS. It was significant even back then. Ever since I have craved a new file system offering to rekindle a fading memory of youth and joy. *sniff*

 

[Guest]

I have a mac..

 

[hmp_goose]

[misses HPFS]

[wonders what sectors per cluster means to an SSD]

 

[aicom]

[citation][nom]hmp_goose[/nom][misses HPFS][wonders what sectors per cluster means to an SSD][/citation]

NTFS was heavily based on HPFS (when MS and IBM were both working on OS/2). It even shares the same MBR partition type code.

 

[confish21]

get article ty so much!

 

[billafu]

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.

 

[haplo602]

any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?

 

[lorfa]

Agree with haplo. Wanted to see ext4 at least.

 

[Guest]

[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]
120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.

 

[Badelhas]

[citation][nom]doctorpink[/nom]120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.[/citation]
Mega LOL!

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]lostmyclan[/nom]toms is partner of micosoft I want some linux test =) 2012 and nothing about linux ?[/citation]
I wonder what it means when they say

For this piece, we're going to go into more depth on file systems with a focus specifically on Windows users, since our rigs in Germany are all Windows-based.

 

[baynham]

ext4 please

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

Thanks for the article. It answered some questions that I'd been pondering for a while. I'm a bit disappointed that you missed ReFS which has debuted in Windows 8/Server 8 - even though the OSes are still in beta.

And ext3/ext4. And yes, I read that your German labs are Windows based, but still, it would've been nice. How many enthusiasts and admins that read this use ext3/4 is another question.

Thanks.

 

[marthisdil]

Hardly no one uses Linux in a home environment, thus, ext4 and linux whiners need to stop.

 

[jclambert1]

I use linux at home regularly - in my primary laptop and file server

 

[trumpeter1994]

[citation][nom]Marthisdil[/nom]Hardly no one uses Linux in a home environment, thus, ext4 and linux whiners need to stop.[/citation]
I don't run linux, but since it has such a dominant presence in the servers you connect to every day...... yes it is relevant

 

[haplo602]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]I wonder what it means when they say[/citation]

that means they don't have enough competence to burn a live cd distro (f.e. PTS or ffs Ubuntu) and try ...

come on, NTFS is a dinosaur filesystem ....

 

[Guest]

I think these tests could also include popular Linux filesystems, such as ext4 and BTRFS, as they seem to have some optimizations for SSD-based drives... from some tests (you can find them on Phoronix), they swiftly beat NTFS/FAT filesystems...

 

[Vatharian]

Most of MLC-based SSDs around are used as a boot drive. On Windows there is completely no choice on which FS to install on. FAT32 is too dangerous, since it offers no protection/detection of corrupt writes. So for casual windows users article holds no meaning. People who use SSD for workstation based work, eg. video processing or databases are forced to use NTFS, because FAT32 can't handle 4GB+ files and exFAT holds no protection, since there are very little repair/recovery tools for it (especially freeware ones). Also portability suffers. Mac users are pretty much forced to use HFS+. For other uses, non-raided ones, data serving can be done on ext4 or xfs, and I think the last one would need to be thrown in, following optional ext4. Other question is how OS handles the FS. I'd want to see HFS+ partition mounted under Windows and NTFS mounted on Mac (ntfs-3g works!). I even use linux installed on same ntfs volume as my Win7). About WinRE - does all the benchmarking tools work with it? And last, but not least - what about testing these drives in raw mode and comparing this to overhead thrown in by FS?

 

[acoriano]

When SSD's becomes 0.10€\GB i will buy one for storage data.

 

[sasa_ri]

So basically 10 pages over a choice that you don't have on Windows?

 

[gwolfman]

You should have thrown a mechanical HDD in there as well since it's obvious that different file systems perform differently (obvious to me, maybe not to all readers). Having the mechanical HDD would help determine whether it's a filesystem nuance or a special case with the combination of filesystem + SSD performance. Otherwise this article seems a bit superficial.

 

[tului]

I suppose for the masses and even myself as little as a few years ago this was a valid question. To me now this seems like asking does the driving surface and type of road impact the speed of your new Supercar. Interstate, highway, cross town, even sand and mud tested.

Still glad to see the article, it made me chuckle thinking about it in my head just now.