Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

Benchmark Results: Iometer Workload Tests

The database test is a completely random set of operations, of which 67% are reads. It works with 8 KB block sizes, on which NTFS can capitalize on the non-compressed Samsung architecture, while the SandForce-based drive performs similarly on NTFS and eFAT. FAT32 is barely worth noting here.

The Web server workload does not execute writes, so it delivers similar performance across all the file systems.

The workstation workload patterns split read and write operations 80/20% respectively, with random and sequential operations also split 80/20%. It involves block sizes of 64, 128, and 256 KB, which is why FAT32 shows performance limits again, since it does not support blocks that large.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
45 comments
    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