USB Flash Drive Roundup - 10/2005
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 4, 2005 11:28 AM EST- Posted in
- Memory
What about NTFS?
By default, Windows XP disables write caching on all USB flash drives, and most of these drives will only allow you to format them as FAT16 or FAT32 with write caching disabled. The benefit of disabling write caching is that you can remove the USB drive as soon as it is done reading/writing, without having to go through Windows' safe removal process - you just simply unplug the drive.
Enabling write caching will let you format the drive as a NTFS partition, but it will also force you to go through the safe removal process before unplugging the drive. There is no performance benefit to enabling write caching under Windows XP on these drives.
If you are willing to deal with the added pain of having to click to stop the USB flash device before unplugging it, formatting one of these drives using NTFS will yield a huge performance increase when dealing with very small file sizes.
In Sandra's 512-byte test, performance generally improves anywhere from 2x - 6x over FAT16. However, the performance advantage isn't nearly as constant as FAT16 over FAT32, as you end up dropping performance with larger file sizes.
Many have cited that NTFS' journaling will increase wear on flash memory, which has a limited number of write cycles before it can no longer be used, but given that that limit is generally about 1,000,000 erase/write cycles, simply using NTFS is not going to make a huge dent in the life span of these drives. You will more than likely upgrade to a larger drive by the time you hit that limit.
In any case, the benefits of NTFS, for the most part, are outweighed by the downsides - so our recommendation continues to be to stick with FAT16 if you can. Otherwise, go with FAT32 and keep write caching disabled under Windows XP.
We mentioned that almost all drives require you to enable write caching under Windows XP in order to allow you to format them using NTFS. There was one exception to that rule in our testing. For whatever reason, the Lexar JumpDrive Lightning would let you format it as a FAT16, FAT32 or NTFS drive with write caching disabled under Windows XP.
By default, Windows XP disables write caching on all USB flash drives, and most of these drives will only allow you to format them as FAT16 or FAT32 with write caching disabled. The benefit of disabling write caching is that you can remove the USB drive as soon as it is done reading/writing, without having to go through Windows' safe removal process - you just simply unplug the drive.
Enabling write caching will let you format the drive as a NTFS partition, but it will also force you to go through the safe removal process before unplugging the drive. There is no performance benefit to enabling write caching under Windows XP on these drives.
If you are willing to deal with the added pain of having to click to stop the USB flash device before unplugging it, formatting one of these drives using NTFS will yield a huge performance increase when dealing with very small file sizes.
In Sandra's 512-byte test, performance generally improves anywhere from 2x - 6x over FAT16. However, the performance advantage isn't nearly as constant as FAT16 over FAT32, as you end up dropping performance with larger file sizes.
Many have cited that NTFS' journaling will increase wear on flash memory, which has a limited number of write cycles before it can no longer be used, but given that that limit is generally about 1,000,000 erase/write cycles, simply using NTFS is not going to make a huge dent in the life span of these drives. You will more than likely upgrade to a larger drive by the time you hit that limit.
In any case, the benefits of NTFS, for the most part, are outweighed by the downsides - so our recommendation continues to be to stick with FAT16 if you can. Otherwise, go with FAT32 and keep write caching disabled under Windows XP.
We mentioned that almost all drives require you to enable write caching under Windows XP in order to allow you to format them using NTFS. There was one exception to that rule in our testing. For whatever reason, the Lexar JumpDrive Lightning would let you format it as a FAT16, FAT32 or NTFS drive with write caching disabled under Windows XP.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
BJL - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
Do the read and write speeds change for the 1gb and above models? Would I get the same performance, or should I stick with the 512mb?NeoZGeo - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link
what kinf of benchmark are you guys using? How come some of those drive write speed is sooooo low!? Like Trenscent, OCZ Rally, i've seen some reviews out there which says other wise.NeoZGeo - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link
here's the review by tom'sif you look at the trenscend jet flash, it actually has the highest write speed average out at 23.3 mb/s vs anandtech's 8.7 mb/s !? what the hell?
NeoZGeo - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link
haha oops, forgot about the link :Dhttp://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20050520/usb_f...">linky
quanta - Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - link
It looked like Tom's test is testing the write speed between USB host and flash drive's controller's memory buffer, instead of actual write speed, which can only be verify by doing a read after writing is completed. There are also reports that http://www.auphanonline.com/articles/view.php?arti...">cluster size may affect the write access behaviour. BTW, Tom's http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/10/two_fast_an...">later review has simultaneous reads and writes benchmark, which slows Memina Rocket to a halt.quanta - Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - link
In addition, even when using buffered write in SiSoft Sandra, it is extremely unlikely that Transcend Jetflash 110 can write anywhere near 23.3MB/s. http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0510/readparticle.asp...">This benchmark shows that when doing random write with Kingston DataTraveler ELITE, write speed dropped more than a half compared to sequential write.gaintstar - Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - link
More updating news about custom metal usb drives factory wholesale,advertising companies gifts, Flason Custom mini usb flash drives,Personalized plastic USB flash drives, custom twister usb flash drives, corporate brand building company gifts items,customized PU body memory sticks,promotional mobile phone usb 3.0 flash drives memory sticks,imprinted promotional products giveaways,custom plastic usb 2.0 drives,custom body usb storage flash drives suppliers....welcome to visit our website: www.flason.com, or send us your enquiry by email: sales@flason.comTrueWisdom - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
I'm the in-house support for a university building and I've had absolutely horrible luck with Lexar drives. Lexar often fails to detect entirely on somewhat older machines (the Latitude C840, for example) and has also displayed a relatively high failure rate for me. I don't have any positive or negative impressions of Kingston drives, so I can't say anything there, but I will say that I've had by far the best luck with Sandisk drives. I've never had one fail on me, and I've seen them go through wash cycles, get run over by a car, and get left out in the rain. Compatibility has been universal as well. They may not be the fastest drives but they really are the only ones I've ever trusted.gaintstar - Wednesday, November 15, 2017 - link
More updating news about custom <a href="http://www.flason.com/Metal-USB-Flash-Drive.html&q... target="_blank">metal usb drives</a> factory wholesale,advertising companies gifts, Flason <a href="http://www.flason.com/Custom-PVC-USB-Drives.html&q... target="_blank">Custom mini usb flash drives</a>,Personalized <a href="http://www.flason.com/Plastic-USB-Flash-Drive.html... target="_blank"><a href=http://www.flason.com/Plastic-USB-Flash-Drive.html target='_blank'>plastic USB flash drive</a>s</a>, custom twister usb flash drives, <a href="http://www.flason.com/Branded-USB-Flash-Drive.html... target="_blank">corporate brand building</a> company gifts items,customized PU body memory sticks,promotional <a href="http://www.flason.com/Mobile-Phone-USB-Drive.html&... target="_blank">mobile phone usb 3.0 flash drives</a> memory sticks,imprinted promotional products giveaways,custom plastic usb 2.0 drives,custom body usb storage flash drives suppliers....welcome to visit our websitependrivethis - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
i work for a flash memory controller maker and in all honesty the most meaningful performance test is random write. and no one really advertise that since sequential read speeds seem much more appealing and marketable. i can get a dual-channel & interleaving enabled usb 2.0 pen drive with micron or samsung nand-type flash to go up to 34mB/s in sequential read, but the engineer who designed this still tells me that he'd rather use and-type flash from renesas (formerly hitachi) since and flash has a better random write than nand flash.and knowing what i know, if you use your pen drive very often, and i suspect some of you may be in that boat, i'd check out some of the burn-in testing results especially since companies are not entirely using only samsung nand flash. certain new flash whether nand-type or ag-and-type and even some high-density samsung flash seem to be displaying a need for extra care in ecc. data-verify errors are fatal, especially if it's the only copy you got...
anand, perhaps a little visit to some of the design houses for these controllers the next time when you're in taiwan is in order. computex is only 9 months away.