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 UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
5 comments
    Your comment
  • jamesedgeuk2000
    Could you not have benchmarked HPS too by doing the tests with a Mac setup to duel boot OSX and Windows 7? (thus letting the 7 install see the HPS file system)
    0
  • djamorpheus
    What about linux filesystems?
    0
  • audiovoodoo
    No mention of cluster size impact on performance?
    0
  • audiovoodoo
    What are you talking about?
    0
  • Anonymous
    Question is does the FAT32 partition was aligned? Data on FAT32 starts straight after two FAT tables (their size depends on amount of clusters). So even if volume for FAT32 partition is aligned after creating such partition the FAT32 clusters may not be aligned to SSD physical sectors.

    http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/151798-does-fat32-align-its-clusters/
    0