Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

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

  • Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

    Phoronix: Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

    With having some new Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager flash drives around, I decided to run some fresh Linux file-system benchmarks on them to see how various file-systems are performing on low-cost USB flash drives.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23096

  • #2
    NTFS is a major fubar and one of the major performance pitholes in the Windows space.
    How about exFAT for usb mass storage? All the features of normal fs:es on external storage like this is one of the last concerns for normal users.
    Don't know about the fuse exFAT state however.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good job by Ext4, also nice to see Btrfs is closing the gap little by little. I'm actually about to trash my Win10 install on my workstation and move over to Fedora full time on that machine. Was in a toss up about what to use for my root FS... Looks like it'll be Btrfs raid1.

      Comment


      • #4
        TL;DR use ext4
        I feel like this a pattern in every filesystem test everywhere.

        Comment


        • #5
          All Linux file system have one problem with removable media - they is no way to disable permissions for they entire file system, this is really, really frustrating when you share one media between multiple systems with multiple users.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by utack View Post
            TL;DR use ext4
            I feel like this a pattern in every filesystem test everywhere.
            If you only care about performance, yes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by utack View Post
              TL;DR use ext4
              I feel like this a pattern in every filesystem test everywhere.
              I agree with Erigc - there's more to a disk than read/write speeds. Considering the features btrfs has to offer, I'd say it's actually pretty competitive and arguably better than EXT4 (though, I personally won't be switching any time soon).


              Anyway, I'm surprised USB 3.0 flash drives are still as slow as they are. Even the best ones aren't impressive. If you get a mSATA to USB 3.0 converter with an mSATA SSD, you can get better performance for a better price (proportionally), with the downside of something physically larger. Though M.2 to USB 3.0 converters ought to be an even better choice at some point.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                Anyway, I'm surprised USB 3.0 flash drives are still as slow as they are. Even the best ones aren't impressive. If you get a mSATA to USB 3.0 converter with an mSATA SSD, you can get better performance for a better price (proportionally), with the downside of something physically larger. Though M.2 to USB 3.0 converters ought to be an even better choice at some point.
                Why not 3.1? Samsung's T3 drives look like they could be interesting to benchmark.

                These form factors aren't quite as convenient as a thumb drive, but they are close.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                  I agree with Erigc

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Near the end of the first page, you refer to the drive as a 1GB drive.
                    This Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager 1GB drive (CMFVY3A-16GB) is rated for maximum sequential reads of 200MB/s and maximum sequential writes of 25MB/s. It's a low-cost flash drive backed by a five year warranty and the 16GB USB 3.0 model will only set you back about $10 USD on Amazon.com.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X