Skip to main content

Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

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.

  • aznshinobi
    Those SSD drives.... *drool* Wish I could afford them.
    Reply
  • 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
  • I have a mac..
    Reply
  • hmp_goose

    Reply
  • aicom
    hmp_goose
    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.
    Reply
  • confish21
    get article ty so much!
    Reply
  • 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
  • haplo602
    any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?
    Reply
  • lorfa
    Agree with haplo. Wanted to see ext4 at least.
    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