13
Haxk20
9d

Should i use f2fs on ssd ? Is it much faster then ext4 ?

Comments
  • 6
    I've never heard of f2fs, so I'm curious as well.
  • 3
    @RantSomeWhere Well but benchmarks show me that its kind of looot faster
  • 0
  • 0
    🏕️
  • 5
    Considering how many writes you can do to an SSD before the cells degrade, I wouldn't really bother. On flash media I usually stick with btrfs or FAT32 instead.
  • 2
    I'd also like to point out that the SSD's controller is the one responsible for wear leveling. What's more, the filesystem or even the kernel cannot interact with individual sectors on the SSD because of that. That's why secure deletion with tools like shred aren't guaranteed to work on an SSD, because the controller can't be told to overwrite a particular cell. So even if there's theoretical advantages to using F2FS, wear leveling isn't one of them. The controller is already doing that for you 🙂

    As for speed.. if it's a SATA SSD, I've heard that you're more likely to be limited by the 6Gbps link on that. On my SSD I'm for some reason limited to some 1Gbps though.. perhaps a crappy controller. Filesystem.. eh, NTFS which I'm using on mine (for fucking WanBLowS) is pretty craptacular, but I don't think that it should give a significant performance impact? FWIW, its performance is similar to that of btrfs which I ran on it before.
  • 1
  • 1
    Isn't f2fs commonly used on mobile phones? Originally developed by Samsung.
  • 2
    🍭📌
  • 3
    @Condor M.2 here. I love btrfs but well i hate the speeds
  • 1
    @Haxk20 hmm, in that case experimentation might be useful.. please keep me updated! Looks like an interesting thing to learn about.
  • 0
    I think ext4 has the best overall performance of all filesystems on Linux but f2fs is pretty close.
    I would personally go with ext4 since the performance isn't much different and software support is better.
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment