Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

By Patrick Schmid, Achim Roos
published

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.

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.

Patrick Schmid
45 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 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