Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

Test Setup And Benchmarks

System Hardware
HardwareDetails
CPUIntel Core i5-2500K (32 nm, Sandy Bridge, D2), 4C/4T, 3.3 GHz, 4 x 256 KB L2 Cache, 6 MB L3 Cache w/ HD Graphics 3000, 95 W TDP, 3.7 GHz max. Turbo Boost
LGA 1155 MotherboardGigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3, Intel Z68 Express, Revision: 0.2, BIOS: F3
RAM2 x 2 GB DDR3-1333, Corsair TR3X6G1600C8D
System SSDIntel X25-M G1, 80 GB, Firmware 0701, SATA 3 Gbit/s
Test SSDsSamsung 830 Series, 256 GB, MCX Controller, SATA 6Gb/s
Zalman F Series F1, 240 GB, SandForce SF-2281, SATA 6Gb/s
ControllerIntel PCH Z68 SATA 6Gb/s 
Power SupplySeasonic X-760 760 W, SS-760KM Active PFC F3
Benchmarks
Performance MeasurementsAS SSD 1.6.4067.34354
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64
PCMark 7 1.0.4
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2006.07.27
Webserver-Benchmark
Database-Benchmark
Workstation-Benchmark
Streaming Reads
Streaming Writes
4K Random Reads
4K Random Writes
System Software & Drivers
DriverDetails
Operating SystemWindows 7 x64 Ultimate SP1
Intel Inf9.2.0.1030
Intel Rapid Storage 10.​5.​0.​1026


To condition the SSDs, we performed a two-hour burn-in, which includes scripted runs of I/O-intensive and streaming-intensive workloads. This way, we make sure that all results reflect real performance instead of returning only peak performance numbers, which are less relevant in everyday life and tend to decline over time.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
45 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • 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*
    18
  • trumpeter1994
    MarthisdilHardly 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
    17
  • haplo602
    any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?
    16
  • Other Comments
  • aznshinobi
    Those SSD drives.... *drool* Wish I could afford them.
    9
  • 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*
    18
  • Anonymous
    I have a mac..
    -25
  • hmp_goose
    [misses HPFS]

    [wonders what sectors per cluster means to an SSD]
    0
  • aicom
    hmp_goose[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.
    1
  • confish21
    get article ty so much!
    -5
  • 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.
    -11
  • haplo602
    any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?
    16
  • lorfa
    Agree with haplo. Wanted to see ext4 at least.
    14
  • Anonymous
    billafuEnjoyed 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.
    -6
  • Badelhas
    doctorpink120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.

    Mega LOL!
    -4
  • ojas
    lostmyclantoms is partner of micosoft I want some linux test =) 2012 and nothing about linux ?

    I wonder what it means when they say
    Quote:
    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.
    9
  • baynham
    ext4 please
    10
  • 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.
    6
  • marthisdil
    Hardly no one uses Linux in a home environment, thus, ext4 and linux whiners need to stop.
    -12
  • jclambert1
    I use linux at home regularly - in my primary laptop and file server
    12
  • trumpeter1994
    MarthisdilHardly 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
    17
  • haplo602
    ojasI 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 ....
    -10
  • Anonymous
    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...
    7
  • 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?
    4