Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USB Flash Drive Comparison Part 2 — FAT32 Vs. NTFS

Posted by timothy on from the get-your-data-past-the-border-guards dept.

Dampeal writes "Ok, a little while back I ran a somewhat large USB Flash Drive Comparison with 21 drives compared, today I got part two of that comparison. I've taken the 8gig and 4 gig drives, nine in total, and formatted them FAT32, NTFS and ExFAT and ran all of the tests over again for a comparison of how the file systems work on the drives." Good news — after some exhaustively graphed testing scenarios, the author comes to a nice conclusion for lazy people, writing "[I]n my opinion the all around best choice is FAT32, or the default for most all USB drives out there today, it seems to give us the best average performance overall."

5 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. No JFFS2? by garbletext · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since interoperability is key in this context, anything besides FAT32 is hopelessly esoteric. So why not test the OSS solution as well?

  2. Re:Great by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about ext2 and other filesystems then?

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. Re:Don't install your OS on FAT32... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Permissions on XP are screwed and hurt more than they help. Being unable to delete/move some files even as Administrator in single user mode is bullshit.

  4. What year is this from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yay, we have an answer to which of these two obsolete legacy fs works best with this modern hardware. But you left out Amiga FFS and MacOS HFS.

    Funny there's no mention of ext4 and reiser3 and xfs.

  5. Re:Choose NTFS for the life of your drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why worry about wear leveling? When's the last time you ran out of ink in a ballpoint pen before you lost it?