Results 1 to 5 of 5

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,641

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Bear in mind that exfat has barely any metadata.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote 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).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •