I am using Colibri T30 V1.1E module with Windows CE 7 V1.4 image.
I created a native C++ app to fill a file with 240 MB of data with 1 MB chunks and track the duration in ms.
If I format the card as FAT32, the best time I’ve achieved after multiple tests is 21480 ms.
With TexFAT, the best time I’ve achieved after multiple tests is 99480 ms.
Should I really expect TexFAT to perform 4.6x slower than FAT32?
That seems very slow. I’ve looked at benchmarks between FAT32 and exFAT for desktop PCs and there wasn’t much difference. I didn’t find any benchmarks for TexFAT.
It is well possible that TFAT and TexFAT are slower. With TFAT you have a trade of between transaction safety and performance. Probably you can do some tweaking with some registry settings described here .
Did you also measure the difference between exFAT and FAT on the modules? May you could save get some performance back there.
@samuel.tx I rested all 4 files systems with a new set of cards. Here are the results:
exFAT = 16888 FAT32 = 18514 TFAT32 = 20575 TexFAT = 84834
I’m still not sure why TexFAT is so slow. There’s hardly any difference between FAT32 and TFAT32 (1.1x slower) so why so slow to add transaction safe to exFAT (5.0x slower)?
@ed.nafziger: I yould not have expected that result. Did you use the same test program as you recently sent us by mail? If so, I will run the tests on some different platforms as well to see if this is a generic WinCE issue or a platform related issue.
@samuel.tx Yes, I used the same test program I sent you. Thanks.
