Re: Finding the best filesystem (for USB flash drive install
Posted: 19 Aug 2011, 00:03
Finally a good investigative start! Good job.
Those numbers look familiar. (Let me guess: current Kingston <16GB USB/controller? Although you could've just told us...
... and here it is, in your own words - assuming that you used Parted > ver. 0.6 or sfdisk/fdisk > ver. 2.17 but Not cfdisk:
ON AVERAGE(!!), running the same/similar tests as you've just completed, on 15-20 top-selling USB drives currently on the market, one will find that the "deterioration" of XFS' performance due to bad NAND chips, messed-up controllers, etc. is significantly less - more fault tolerant, or "compensatory" - then that of EXT4. In some, quite common, instances those performance differences, which you have observed, simply go off the charts. (Read Penalty -> EXT4 vs. XFS >200% in favor of XFS.)
Of course, there remains XFS' bias in working with large(r) files. (Its data-recovery potential still remains without peers!) Compare that to EXT4's preference to not work at all (for all practical purposes) in the case of many, currently available USB drives.
Those numbers look familiar. (Let me guess: current Kingston <16GB USB/controller? Although you could've just told us...
... and here it is, in your own words - assuming that you used Parted > ver. 0.6 or sfdisk/fdisk > ver. 2.17 but Not cfdisk:
Yes, there are. -And Yes, "aligned" means what the built-in micro-controller decides it means, not what Parted says - although ver. >0.6 goes some way to fixing that.maybe there are a certain number of sectors at the beginning of the partition that push the actual data out of alignment?
ON AVERAGE(!!), running the same/similar tests as you've just completed, on 15-20 top-selling USB drives currently on the market, one will find that the "deterioration" of XFS' performance due to bad NAND chips, messed-up controllers, etc. is significantly less - more fault tolerant, or "compensatory" - then that of EXT4. In some, quite common, instances those performance differences, which you have observed, simply go off the charts. (Read Penalty -> EXT4 vs. XFS >200% in favor of XFS.)
Of course, there remains XFS' bias in working with large(r) files. (Its data-recovery potential still remains without peers!) Compare that to EXT4's preference to not work at all (for all practical purposes) in the case of many, currently available USB drives.