Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

Benchmark Results: Iometer 4 KB Random And Streaming Read/Write

The 4 KB random write testing really serves as a poignant reminder of FAT32's age. Considering what we saw in AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark, the results don’t come as a surprise. It is obvious that the flexible cluster size of FAT32 at large drive capacities becomes an issue for write operations. The 4 KB chunks have to be accommodated into 32 KB clusters. exFAT does the job much better than FAT32, although it may also have large cluster sizes. Since its free clusters are indexed, however, finding one is a simple matter of looking up the corresponding bit in the bitmap.

Again, the results on sustained throughput resemble those seen in our earlier tests, and there are really no surprises there.

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    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)
  • djamorpheus
    What about linux filesystems?
  • audiovoodoo
    No mention of cluster size impact on performance?
  • audiovoodoo
    What are you talking about?
  • 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.