Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F2FS Results Mixed Against Microsoft's exFAT On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F2FS Results Mixed Against Microsoft's exFAT On Linux

    Phoronix: F2FS Results Mixed Against Microsoft's exFAT On Linux

    In the benchmarking that has happened since the release of the Linux 3.8 kernel, there's been many tests that occurred of Samsung's Flash-Friendly File-System (F2FS). With that testing has also come many requests to compare the performance of this file-system designed for flash storage devices to Microsoft's exFAT file-system as well as NTFS. In this article are those benchmark results.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18541

  • #2
    Bear in mind that exfat has barely any metadata.

    Comment


    • #3
      I suspected as much...

      let's face it, exFat IS the superior file system to be used on sd and usb storage. And this conclusion came after observing read/write speeds of several FS in windows/os x/linux.

      fucking microsoft should just open exfat so everyone could use it natively

      btw I would venture a bet that had your formatted the usb key in windows and ran the tests in windows the results would be even more in favor of exfat

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pallidus View Post
        I suspected as much...

        let's face it, exFat IS the superior file system to be used on sd and usb storage. And this conclusion came after observing read/write speeds of several FS in windows/os x/linux.

        fucking microsoft should just open exfat so everyone could use it natively

        btw I would venture a bet that had your formatted the usb key in windows and ran the tests in windows the results would be even more in favor of exfat
        I call bull, exFAT doesn't journal metadata making data loss likely on power loss. It doesn't support POSIX attributes, extended attributed, or hard or soft links.

        For a fair comparision, take exFAT vs ext2, or ext4 with journaling diabled.

        What I see is a fully standards-compliant filesystem files system does not have a significant performance disadvantage for basic operation compared to one designed as a quick and simple solution to removable media. THe only place you see a significant difference is in postmark, which tests the suitability of a file-system as a mail server (read and writes of many small files).

        Comment


        • #5
          Yea, overall benchmarking FSs with different features without noting them makes it kind of misleading. After all, every single Linux installation comes with a super fast file-system that has real-time reading and writing speeds of any data. It's called /dev/null.

          Comment

          Working...
          X