Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
Synthetic benchmarks that spit out performance numbers for contrived workloads do not necessarily reflect real-life performance. To represent more realistic scenarios, we turn to PCMark 7. While PCMark 7 isn’t exactly a real-world suite, it is trace-based and does in fact reflect typical performance you would see in everyday operation.
Importing pictures to Windows Photo gallery means writing quite a bit of data. Appropriately, FAT32 isn’t the best foundation for this workload.
The overall score makes it clear that the differences in the real-world is much smaller than some of the more synthetic measures might suggest, regardless of whether you're comparing file systems or SSD architectures. However, FAT32 really is a bad choice on the Samsung 830, as seen in this example.
Related Stories :
- Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?
- Freeing Up Capacity On An SSD With NTFS Compression
- Smart Storage Systems Debuts First 2 TB SAS SSD With 19 nm MLC Flash
- Samsung Intros NAND Flash-Friendly File System
- Windows Server 8 to Get a New File System: ReFS
- Win an Intel Core i7-3930K + X79 + SSD System Kit
- IBM Files Flexible Capacity SSD Patent
- The WinFS File System For Windows Longhorn: Faster & Smarter
- Apple Files for Patent on Smart Bicycle System
Those SSD drives.... *drool* Wish I could afford them.
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*
I have a mac..
[misses HPFS]
[wonders what sectors per cluster means to an SSD]
[misses HPFS][wonders what sectors per cluster means to an SSD]
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.
get article ty so much!
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.
any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?
Agree with haplo. Wanted to see ext4 at least.
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.
120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.
120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.
Mega LOL!
toms is partner of micosoft I want some linux test =) 2012 and nothing about linux ?
I wonder what it means when they say
ext4 please
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.
Hardly no one uses Linux in a home environment, thus, ext4 and linux whiners need to stop.
I use linux at home regularly - in my primary laptop and file server
Hardly no one uses Linux in a home environment, thus, ext4 and linux whiners need to stop.
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
I wonder what it means when they say
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 ....
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...