SSDs and file systems

Hi everyone

Just wanted to share a nice article on SSDs and file systems. Enjoy

Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance? : What's A File System? Does It Matter?

 

What is the purpose of this article ? exFAT is just an enhanced FAT which of course is better and being just an enhanced version, it lacks features that is needed for modern OS, so without any bencmark, we can easily draw the same conclusion, NTFS is for the FS to use, exFAT is the FS for mobile media like usb stick/sdhc etc., something in practice since the NT era.

If they really want to do some real analysis, should compare the new FS in W8 vs NTFS though unfortunately that new promising FS only appears in server version initially.

 

The purpose is very basic (if you read the intro you would have noticed, I believe). Just to give people an idea of how the SSDs would compare when used with the most common file systems for everyday users (FAT32 on win xp, exFAT for pendrives and such, and NTFS for vista, 7 and 8).

I liked it. If you don't, then my apologies.

 

nothing to apologize, i am commenting the article not you. There is only one and only one FS under windows since NT 3.0, NTFS(well HPFS was supported as well but that is ancient history). Thus that article to me is written for no purpose but to fill the space, nothing have been changed for 20+ years.

FAT32 on XP is plain wrong though. All NT based system must use NTFS except for cold storage that is intended to be moved around(betwteen systems like linux/mac/windows) as FAT doesn't have support for permission management.

 

Well, yes, you are correct.

The intro gives an idea of the file systems on windows. For people who don't have at least an idea, it is nice.

The rest is curiosity read. I would have expected a bigger gap in performance.

 

this article is interesting....especially for mac people....macs use a different file system than windows and the article tests and compares ssds brand new and worn on both systems and comes to the conclusion that apples dont need trim.
its somehow stunning, but its hard to believe as i always read about people trying to trim their mac ssd.
whats that all about? can anyone confirm that ssds running on a mac do not need trim?

here, read that: Does OS X need TRIM? | bit-tech.net

 

From the first article why would you say HFS+ (or any file system for that matter) doesn't need TRIM?

In regards to the second article, it is quite dated - 2010.

Apple itself added TRIM to OS X Lion (released July 2011). And for those who do not have OS X Lion, but Snow Leopard nor the "Apple Approved" SSDs, you can use Trim Enabler for OS X to enable it. I doubt Apple would be adding TRIM and enabling it with their own SSDs, and other people creating utilities enabling TRIM, if it wasn't necessary for peak performance within OS X.

So, the question becomes can the SSD's particular GC clean up before TRIM would become necessary. That all depends on the SSD. See AnandTech - TRIM Enabler 2.0 for OS X Lion Released for add't info.

 

TRIM and file system are totally unrelated.

TRIM only give the SSD more information about which cell it can disgard and would benefit any SSD. Some needs it more than others but the fact is still TRIM is better than no TRIM.

 

Yep. That is why I had asked AcBodie about the conclusion regarding TRIM from that first article.

 

from his link, it sounds more to me that 'MBA' is already slow enough(comparing with Windows) and a bit slower is not going to hurt much

 

Good point. However, dunno what the throughput of MBA (SATA II?) is compared to Win based machines of the same time. Things may be different right now with today's SATA III controllers/drives.

 

must admit i am new to ssds, new to this forum..didnt notice about how old that article is and about newer technologies...still i find it interesting to see the comparison if you read that whole article

thanks for answering and the conclusion TRIM is better than no TRIM for any ssd. i am planning a project with my old laptop and am therefore searching information on the net on what i should look out for when choosing the right ssd for me
i think i came to the right place....read a lot of threads on different boards and my understanding of ssds grows...i think i will open a new thread for questions

well ok so ssds and file systems are not related and tirm is better than no trim doesnt matter what plus different ssds have different good garbage collection, right? can you name some ssds with good garbage collection?

 

I think in a Mac or a PC, you cannot go wrong with:

+ Sumsung's 830
+ Crucial's M4
+Intel's 510 (although, I don't think I've seen a post of anyone using this on Mac OS X.)

 

from what I remember the samsung 830 gave some people some headaches, the m4, the 510 as well. Those are from threads in mac rumors

The best SSD for mac, strangely as it is, are the ones that they ship with it, and sandforce based. Since you wont need trim that much. I still prefer to put the m4 in a mac.

You cant hibernate though, you will have to hard reboot, sandforce screws up all around.

 

Too lazy to look it up, but I swear there were plenty of ppl using the 830 (or perhaps another Samsung model) as an after-market purchase for Macs

 

the 470 was great for macs, the initial wave of 830 gave them problems, beachballs and so forth, dunno if there was a firmware to fix this

I remember that I was looking to get one 256gb 830 for me, so I can put on mine, and started reading

 

All SSDs will give a few customers headaches at some point in time. The sandforce based ones, though, are worse right not. I'd go with the Samsung 830 for its price/performance/reliability ration. The Intel 510 is good but it's still a tad on the expensive side and it is not as fast.

 

I am of the same opinion.