With window 7 and 8 MS is on the right track when it comes to performance and stability, so if the same goes for protogon then it could well be faster. Maybe not for hdds but at least for ssds. I don't think NTFS is optimized for ssds, if a filesystem can be optimized for a ssds anyway. But if it can be optimized then there's a good chance that ssds will benefit from protogon. Hdds already exist for so long that tweaking filesystems is almost if not completely impossible cause it's already that good. Or am I wrong?
Stability and reliability I agree with. Performance and windows? The performance gain that the development of new hardware (CPU / chipset / RAM) brings could be more drastic if M$ would not waste performance. I also don't think NTFS is optimized for SSDs since it never had been optimized for HDDs. Also the build in defrag for HDDs is crapy. It are the SSD manufacturers that have to optimize their devices for NTFS, because M$ doesn't care about, they finally are monopolist. NTFS is an old filesystem and even FAT32 runs better on flash devices. EXT4 is far superior on flash devices. I noticed about on my phone where I use EXT4 partitions and FAT32 partitions to remain accessibility from windows. When formatting a USB thumb drive with NTFS its performance is worse compared to FAT32. M$ could develop a better one, but therefore they have to cooperate with SSD manufacturers.
Filesystems are a subject on their own. You have big partitions and small partitions. A lot of small files or only a few very large files. SSD or hdd. All the 8 possible combinations probably have their own optimized filesystem design, so it's always the goal to find a balance between the optimizations. With time the most frequent combination changes (going from hdd to ssd for example, but also filesizes and the amount of files), so filesystems have to evolve with this. So there isn't really a 1 fits all, a filesystem that's efficient in 1 case may be less efficient in other cases as the amount of files, their size, the partition size, ssd vs hdd is different.
Yeah sure, some would share anything with M$, or other external sources. But how could M$ be the bad guys since they have developed w8? I use my Enigma 2 (Linux) media server to store and backup data and it runs EXT2 filesystem. Well if NTFS is slower than FAT32 on USB thumb drive it depends on: Size of drive /partition and cluster size File size and amount of files Location of files on the drive. Manufacturer / driver (OS) I did a test some years ago and had copied the same contents onto the same drive. But one time FAT32 formatted, the other time NTFS formatted. With NTFS the drive was significantly slower (file copy speed, many files and folders, size low, mp3 music files). You simply can do the same test. Also SSDs are different. They are flash devices as well, but they use TRIM and have a controller to manage I/O. I have a OCZ vertex II SSD which is NTFS formatted though, it's very fast since it's optimized to run with NTFS. But most common is FAT32. NTFS is windows 'only'.
The type of the file system is RAW. The new file system is PROTOGON. WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVE P: WILL BE LOST! Proceed with Format (Y/N)? y QuickFormatting 1024M Volume label (32 characters, ENTER for none)? 123 Creating file system structures. Format failed. Format failed.
I agree with this statement, especially the Windows defender, getting rid of it makes system runs a lot better.
I'll do a benchmark tomorrow with a microSD card with FAT, FAT32, NTFS, UDF 2.50 (latest available in format.exe), exFAT and Protogon. I'll use 7989 cause protogon doesn't seem to work in WDP, it formats to 100% and after asking for a volume name it fails. I'll use Flash Memory Toolkit 2.0 portable, so I can also do a low-level benchmark which is filesystem independent. Perhaps I can also test a HDD too with a different program. Note that I don't have USB 3.0 on any of my machines, so it's all 2.0 speed.
Read and write speeds are decided by so much more then just the file system, surely you guys know that?
Yep and especially with USB which relies on the CPU. High CPU load results in slower transfers. But I can't connect it to sata, so there's no other solution.