Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?
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.
AS SSD: Random And Sequential Throughput
Random 4 KB read and write operations with an unsaturated queue (a queue depth of one) represent a fairly typical load scenario.
Writes are faster, as the drive can quickly find a free sector to write to, while the read operations are specific to a given sector. Writes to the Samsung 830 are significantly slower using FAT32, though the Zalman F1 drive seems to suggest this isn't an issue inherent to the file system itself.
A very large queue depth of 64 pending commands allows the drives to optimize read operations, leading to much improved throughput.
On exFAT and NTFS, this has a very positive impact, while the drives working with FAT32 suffer enormous performance hits. However, a queue depth of 64 is really only theoretical, since desktop systems hardly ever experience queues depths in excess of four.
Sequential throughput helps illustrate FAT32's lagging performance in a more realistic situation, and its throughput is severely limited, especially on the Zalman SSD. Since storage drives tend to be used for holding larger files (like the aforementioned videos), this metric is ostensibly the most relevant to us.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: AS SSD: Random And Sequential Throughput
Prev Page Test Setup And Benchmarks Next Page AS SSD: Access Time, Copy Benchmark, And Overall Score-
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*Reply -
aicom hmp_gooseReply
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.
-
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.Reply -
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.Reply