Benchmark Results: Iometer 4 KB Random And Streaming Read/Write
The 4 KB random write testing really serves as a poignant reminder of FAT32's age. Considering what we saw in AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark, the results don’t come as a surprise. It is obvious that the flexible cluster size of FAT32 at large drive capacities becomes an issue for write operations. The 4 KB chunks have to be accommodated into 32 KB clusters. exFAT does the job much better than FAT32, although it may also have large cluster sizes. Since its free clusters are indexed, however, finding one is a simple matter of looking up the corresponding bit in the bitmap.
Again, the results on sustained throughput resemble those seen in our earlier tests, and there are really no surprises there.
43
Comments
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...