Performance in Intel IOMeter WorkStation Pattern
And now we will compare the HDDs performance in completely different working conditions. WorkStation pattern boasts first, big share of writes, and second, small workload range, which never exceeds 32 outgoing requests.
Therefore, our testing participants behaved absolutely differently:
Of course, the best one here is Fujitsu drive. Under low workload it proved simply brilliant. If we recall the situation in DataBase pattern, then Fujitsu drive worked much better when the writes share was big enough, which actually determined its success in WorkStation.
Under low workloads Fujitsu drive is the leader, and under high workloads (for this pattern, of course) Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 gets ahead. Maxtor drive also looks very nice, though it starts lagging behind the competitors under heavy workloads.
However, since the rating formula for the WorkStation pattern depends much more on the HDD performance under small workloads (the assigned weight coefficient is pretty big), the Maxtor drive managed to outpace Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 in the end!
The formula for rating calculation looks as follows:
Performance = Total I/O (queue=1)/1 + Total I/O (queue=2)/2 + Total I/O (queue=4)/4 + Total I/O (queue=8)/8 + Total I/O (queue=16)/16 + Total I/O (queue=32)/32
Note that the results are included in the rating with a lowering coefficient, which is inversely proportional to the value of this workload. In other words, the final HDD results are determined mostly by their performance under small workloads.
So, it turns out that Fujitsu drive is ahead. The second position belongs to Maxtor, while the Seagate drive, which managed to speed up only under high workloads won only the third prize.