Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Sep 2008 21:33 UTC
Windows A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Acer Aspire One notebook, the variant which came with an Acer-modified version of Linpus Linux. This version was locked-down and difficult to modify, so not too long after I installed Ubuntu, and was reasonably pleased - despite the amount of tweaking it took to get it working. A few days ago, however, I realised Linux wouldn't be ideal for me on my netbook. Due to pragmatic reasons, I'm now running Windows XP.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 66 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 329360
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by lemur2 on Fri 5th Sep 2008 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FAT, it's all about FAT"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Did you use ext2 on SSD? That's a big mistake if you ask me. Maybe you are not aware, but on SSD, we use JFFS2. Of course, you must have had very slow performance with ext2! jffs2 is a journaled file system, you don't have to choose to disable that feature to obtain good performances.


Precisely so. The OP apparently knew enough to realise that NTFS gave unacceptable performance with XP using a SSD, and so used FAT instead, but did not realise that an entirely similar situation applied in Linux. Just as you cannot get decent performance with XP using NTFS on an SSD, so too you cannot get decent performance with Linux using ext2 on a SSD.

Ignorance of those facts by the OP has apparently led the OP to believe that Linux itself is slow and XP isn't.

It has been around for quite some time now and jffs3 will soon replace it.


Now that I didn't know. I had thought that Logfs was going to replace jffs2.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uhm... What are you guys complaining about? ext2 sure isn't made for SSDs - but how about fat32? That sure isn't made for SSDs either! You guys would have a point if I used a log-structured filesystem on Windows, but not on Linux, and then compared performance of the two. However, as it stands now, there's an equal environment set up: two 'old-world' filesystems, boh NOT optimised for SSDs.

I don't like moving to relatively experimental filesystems, since you never know what you might run into.

As I expected when I wrote the article and pressed the publish button, a lot of people are so hell-bent on the idea that all what Microsoft does is suckage, and as soon as someone comes along who has the audacity to criticise Linux, he's an idiot, a moron, a Microsoft shill, or whatever.

I don't really care in the end, because I now have a netbook that outperforms the Linux installation, and whether you believe me or not (why on EARTH would I lie?!?), I'm still happy.

The next step is setting up a striped volume across the SSD and an SD card, which supposedly gives a massive speed bump.

http://www.aspireoneuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2360&st=0&sk...

This can be achieved with Linux too, of course.

Edited 2008-09-05 15:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Uhm... What are you guys complaining about? ext2 sure isn't made for SSDs - but how about fat32? That sure isn't made for SSDs either! You guys would have a point if I used a log-structured filesystem on Windows, but not on Linux, and then compared performance of the two. However, as it stands now, there's an equal environment set up: two 'old-world' filesystems, boh NOT optimised for SSDs.

I don't like moving to relatively experimental filesystems, since you never know what you might run into.

As I expected when I wrote the article and pressed the publish button, a lot of people are so hell-bent on the idea that all what Microsoft does is suckage, and as soon as someone comes along who has the audacity to criticise Linux, he's an idiot, a moron, a Microsoft shill, or whatever.

I don't really care in the end, because I now have a netbook that outperforms the Linux installation, and whether you believe me or not (why on EARTH would I lie?!?), I'm still happy.


I have no doubt that you obtained the results you claim, Thom.

FAT is a venerable single-user filesystem originally designed for floppy disks with the old UPPERCAS.TXT 8.3 naming system. It has been heavily cludged since then, but it still lacks even elementary features needed by a modern OS. Good luck with your system security running with FAT, Thom.

It just happens to work tolerably well with SSDs. Almost by accident, really ... certainly not by design.

It is listed as a suitable SSD filesystem here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Flash_memory_.2F_...

You will note that neither NTFS nor ext2 is listed there.

So if you want to actually compare speeds, and you yourself have said that you believed writing to the SSD by firefox was the cause of the slowdown. BTW, if this were true, would happen in Windows to the same extent as in Linux, since firefox is the same codebase.

No, there is a very identifiable cause why you got good results with XP ... it is because you used FAT, and FAT happens to be suitable for use on an SSD.

So if you actually wanted to draw a fair comparison to Linux, you should actually use a filesystem that can support Linux and also happens to be suitable for use on a SSD.

That is all, Thom. No-one is having a go at you ... rather just pointing out the disjoint in your logic where you seem to have concluded that XP is faster when in fact what you did was compare XP on a cut-down capability (and hence faster) filesystem to a hobbled Linux install that was nowhere near as tuned to your hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 5

agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Uhm... What are you guys complaining about? ext2 sure isn't made for SSDs - but how about fat32? That sure isn't made for SSDs either! You guys would have a point if I used a log-structured filesystem on Windows, but not on Linux, and then compared performance of the two. However, as it stands now, there's an equal environment set up: two 'old-world' filesystems, boh NOT optimised for SSDs.

You make it sound like linux and Windows are equal and should be equal. Maybe Windows is better for you if you don't want to use the extra features of linux. However, you should make it clear that linux is slower when used just like Windows, not when you use it as it should be used.
I don't like moving to relatively experimental filesystems, since you never know what you might run into.
It's been around for a very long time now.
As I expected when I wrote the article and pressed the publish button, a lot of people are so hell-bent on the idea that all what Microsoft does is suckage, and as soon as someone comes along who has the audacity to criticise Linux, he's an idiot, a moron, a Microsoft shill, or whatever.
It's because linux is a kernel and Windows is an OS. When you try to compare the two, you are wrong from the start.
I don't really care in the end, because I now have a netbook that outperforms the Linux installation, and whether you believe me or not (why on EARTH would I lie?!?), I'm still happy.

The next step is setting up a striped volume across the SSD and an SD card, which supposedly gives a massive speed bump.

http://www.aspireoneuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2360&...

This can be achieved with Linux too, of course.

No problem man, be happy with Windows. I was just pointing, as a comment to your article that you used linux incorrectly and that there is an alternative to Windows for performance: use linux correctly.

Reply Parent Score: 4