Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]

Testbed and Methods

The following testing utilities were used:

  • Intel IOMeter 2003.02.15
  • WinBench 99 2.0
  • FC-Test 1.0
  • PCMark 2004

Testbed configuration:

  • Albatron PX865PE Pro II mainboard
  • Intel Pentium 4 2.4GHz CPU
  • IBM DTLA-307015 system disk, 15GB
  • Radeon 7000 32MB graphics card
  • 256MB DDR2-533 SDRAM
  • Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2

I installed the generic OS drivers for the drives and formatted them in FAT32 and NTFS as one partition with the default cluster size. For some tests 32GB partitions were created and formatted in FAT32 and NTFS with the default cluster size. The HDDs were attached to a Promise SATA300 controller that supported NCQ.

Performance in Intel IOMeter

Sequential Read & Write Patterns

The HDD is receiving a stream of read and write requests with a request queue depth of 4. The size of the requested data block is changed each minute, so that you could see how the drive’s sequential read/write speed depends on the size of the data block. This test will show you the maximum speed the HDD can achieve.

The HDDs from Fujitsu and Hitachi boast the highest top speed, but the results of the drives from Toshiba and Seagate are even more exciting: they have a lower top speed than the leaders but achieve it on 4KB data blocks, being about 50% faster than their opponents then. These HDDs are also two times as fast as the others on 2KB data blocks. The Samsung performs poorly irrespective of the data block size.

It’s different at writing: the Fujitsu is now the sole leader in terms of top speed. The Toshiba couldn’t keep up the tempo of the Seagate on small data blocks and joined the group of HDDs with average performance. The Samsung has the lowest top speed while the Fujitsu, somewhat surprisingly, is the worst one on small data blocks.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]


Comments currently: 11
Discussion started: 12/05/07 05:13:20 PM
Latest comment: 04/09/08 06:47:29 AM

View comments

Add your Comment