usb stick, and file system (vfat vs ext3)

simon111 · External Since: Mar 06, 2009 Posts: 2

hi, experts:
i am new to linux . and i found a straight phenomenon:
i have a usb stick (4GB), it's in USB 2.0 ,
its R/W speed is slow when i format it with ext3
but , when i format it with vfat , its R/W speed changes
very quick
i am very instreting in it. is the ext3 not very suit for usb
stick?

David Brown · External Since: Jan 07, 2007 Posts: 25

simon111 wrote:
> hi, experts:
> i am new to linux . and i found a straight phenomenon:
> i have a usb stick (4GB), it's in USB 2.0 ,
> its R/W speed is slow when i format it with ext3
> but , when i format it with vfat , its R/W speed changes
> very quick
> i am very instreting in it. is the ext3 not very suit for usb
> stick?

If write caching is not enabled and you have a logging file system (such
as ext3), then writes are going to be much slower than an unlogged file
system (each write of a file is going to need a couple of extra writes
to the log).

user · External Since: Aug 14, 2005 Posts: 1361

simon111 wrote:

> hi, experts:
> i am new to linux . and i found a straight phenomenon:
> i have a usb stick (4GB), it's in USB 2.0 ,
> its R/W speed is slow when i format it with ext3
> but , when i format it with vfat , its R/W speed changes
> very quick
> i am very instreting in it. is the ext3 not very suit for usb
> stick?

EXT3 (and NTFS) is a journaling file system that allows roll back when
things go wrong. You must not use that feature on USB stick because the
journal is frequently written and will wear out sectors. You can format to
EXT2 that does not use journaling - or if you must your EXT3, then buy a
USB SSD like the Buffalo SSDs that manages sector wear.

EXT3 is backward compatible with EXT2 and so you can mount the EXT3
filesystem as an EXT2 file system and eliminate the issue entirely without
having to re-format.

Jim Jackson · External Since: Nov 13, 2005 Posts: 19

7 <website_has_email.RemoveThis@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> simon111 wrote:

> > hi, experts:
> > i am new to linux . and i found a straight phenomenon:
> > i have a usb stick (4GB), it's in USB 2.0 ,
> > its R/W speed is slow when i format it with ext3
> > but , when i format it with vfat , its R/W speed changes
> > very quick
> > i am very instreting in it. is the ext3 not very suit for usb
> > stick?

> EXT3 (and NTFS) is a journaling file system that allows roll back when
> things go wrong. You must not use that feature on USB stick because the
> journal is frequently written and will wear out sectors. You can format to
> EXT2 that does not use journaling - or if you must your EXT3, then buy a
> USB SSD like the Buffalo SSDs that manages sector wear.

Nearly all USB sticks "manage" sector wear.

> EXT3 is backward compatible with EXT2 and so you can mount the EXT3
> filesystem as an EXT2 file system and eliminate the issue entirely without
> having to re-format.

simon111 · External Since: Mar 06, 2009 Posts: 2

thank you all.
i tried. mounting with ext2 is quicker than ext3

On Mar 9, 6:38 am, j... DeleteThis @franjam.org.uk (Jim Jackson) wrote:
> 7 <website_has_em... DeleteThis @www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > simon111 wrote:
> > > hi, experts:
> > > i am new to linux . and i found a straight phenomenon:
> > > i have a usb stick (4GB), it's in USB 2.0 ,
> > > its R/W speed is slow when i format it with ext3
> > > but , when i format it with vfat , its R/W speed changes
> > > very quick
> > > i am very instreting in it. is the ext3 not very suit for usb
> > > stick?
> > EXT3 (and NTFS) is a journaling file system that allows roll back when
> > things go wrong. You must not use that feature on USB stick because the
> > journal is frequently written and will wear out sectors. You can format to
> > EXT2 that does not use journaling - or if you must your EXT3, then buy a
> > USB SSD like the Buffalo SSDs that manages sector wear.
>
> Nearly all USB sticks "manage" sector wear.
>
> > EXT3 is backward compatible with EXT2 and so you can mount the EXT3
> > filesystem as an EXT2 file system and eliminate the issue entirely without
> > having to re-format.