• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
ilko_t

FAT16 vs FAT32 vs NTFS speed on USB stick

33 posts in this topic

USB disks are at DISK.SYS. I tried to rename it to _isk.sys and amend txtsetup.sif accordingly. This failed, disk.sys is hardcoded and used in other drivers, I did not go further.

Probably also setup.hiv and .inf files need to be amended...:unsure:

You can try renaming other drivers, i.e. ATAPI.SYS->ZTAPI.SYS, just for the sake of checking? :blink:

I don't think it will work, as an ATA/IDE drive will be both under ATAPI.SYS and DISK.SYS.....:(

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as this update will not be automatically delivered through WU the majority of WinXP users will not have support for exFAT and thus my USB drive becomes much less portable if exFAT is used.

Edited by BigDaddy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few tests on Windows 7 x64.

Buffalo RUF2-R2G USB stick, Windows 7 x64, xcopy-ing I386 folder only, from XP SP3 from a folder on the internal hard disk, 5878 small files, 375MB total. Default cluster size for 2GB partition, tests repeated several times with format before each.

K0QVZBBs.jpg

NTFS - 572.22 seconds :w00t:

FAT16 - 169.17 seconds

FAT32 - 171.19 seconds

Quite slow Apacer 4GB stick:

3CRk8k9s.jpg

NTFS - 696.48

FAT16 - 818.19

FAT32 - 903.17

Optimize for performance/removal doesn't seem to make any sugnificant difference in each case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATlCckBk.gif

 

 

I buy this Transcend Jetflash 790 flash drive and fire Crystaldiskmark up:

 

lX8KJkYO.png

 

giphy.gif

 

Now it isn't that I like complaining, but those numbers look too good to be true. That'd be SATA III SSD speeds for ten euros. :crazy:

 

To add weirdness the test was done on a very modest AM1 system with just an X4  2.1GHz CPU, and the drive was on 'Quick Removal' (not 'Best Performance').

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

EDIT - Never mind, I'm retarded and just mistakenly benchmarked the SSD instead of the flash drive. :ph34r:

 

 

THIS is the flash drive benchmark, about what should be expected:

 

uHGm7RWx.png

 

 

Edited by TELVM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.