Performance evaluation of different partition formats for solid-state drives

performance evaluation of different partition formats for solid-state drives

FAT32:

First introduced in the 1997 Windows OSR2 Second Edition system, it is still popular, especially on low capacity devices, because the support is too wide, all the mainstream operating systems can create, read, write FAT32 partitions.

Because it is a 32-bit file system, the maximum capacity of the FAT32 partition is only 32TB, the volume of a single file cannot exceed 4GB, and the file name length can not exceed 255 characters.

In addition, FAT32 does not support advanced technologies such as logging, copyright management, and security is also poor.

Ntfs:

The full name new Technology file system, a newer feature of Windows NT, has properties similar to IBM HPFS. File Volume Max 16TB (theoretically 16EB), maximum partition capacity 256TB, file name is not limited to 255 characters.

NTFS also supports LZ77 compression, file-level encryption (typically AES), access Control (ACLs), and cluster size reduction to 4KB (which is important for solid-state drives). The Master File Table (MFT) is responsible for storing robust properties, locations, and access information.

exFAT:

Microsoft is specifically designed for flash device file system, high-capacity SDXC Card default is this format, but also not forced. Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista SP1 and above all support, partition maximum capacity 64ZB, file volume maximum 16EB. The cluster size can be as large as 16MB, and access control relies on ACLs.

exFAT uses the remaining space bitmap to manage capacity allocation and improves deletion performance, which is important for improving write performance, especially in contrast to NTFS.

Note, however, that it is not possible to install the Windows system on the exFAT partition. Windows VISTA/7 are very dependent on attributes such as NTFS file permissions.

However, due to the limitations of Microsoft's licensing mechanism, the popularity of exFAT is not widespread, and the application in the field of consumer electronics is not particularly large.

Test platform configuration:

Processor: Core i5-2500k 3.3GHz

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3

RAM: Pirate ship tr3x6g1600c8d ddr3-1333 2gbx2

System disk: Intel x25-m G1 80GB (firmware 0701)

Test panel: Samsung 830 256GB, Min F1 240GB

Controller: Intel Z68 SATA 6Gbps

Power: Sea Rhyme X-760 760W

Operating system: Windows 7 SP1 x64 flagship edition

Driver: Intel INF 9.2.0.1030, Intel RST 10.5.0.1026

One of the participating solid-state drives: Samsung 830 256GB (MCX master)

The second: Si F1 240GB (sandforce SF-2281 main control)

As SSD 4KB Random Read and write: FAT32 830 of the write is slow too much, but the F1 is the best, which does not seem to be the problem of the partition format itself.

As SSD 4KB Random Read and write (queue depth): exFAT is the best, and NTFS follows, FAT32 is completely out of line, but note that ordinary desktop applications are rarely able to relate to 64 of the queue depth.

As SSD continues to read and write: FAT32 again, especially the F1 of the people on the miserable. EXFAT, NTFS read all the same, but write to see the hard drive.