Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Xbitlabs on Facebook
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
Web-Server, Fileserver and Workstation Patterns
The drives are tested under loads typical of servers and workstations.
The names of the patterns are self-explanatory. The Workstation pattern is used with the full capacity of the drive as well as with a 32GB partition. The request queue is limited to 32 requests in the Workstation pattern.
The results are presented as performance ratings (we’ll only show ratings for the Workstation pattern in order to reduce the number of diagrams). For the File-Server and Web-Server patterns the performance rating is the average speed of the drive under every load. For the Workstation pattern we use the following formula:
Rating (Workstation) = 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.
Quite expectedly, the pair of Western Digital’s drives is unrivalled. Third place goes to the Hitachi E7K1000. The Samsung F1 DT is the worst of the 7200rpm 3-platter drives.
Well, the 5400rpm drives find it hard to compete with the 7200rpm products at reading (the Seagate SV35.3 is an exception).
Compare Hitachi’s drives: the higher-density 7K1000.B is worse than the old 7K1000 due to the smaller amount of cache memory. As for the Green drives from WD, the model with large buffer outperforms the enterprise model from Samsung and the 3-platter slow-headed Seagate thanks to effective NCQ algorithms.
It’s easy to see the leaders and losers among the “fast” drives: WD’s team are in the lead, and the 3-platter Seagate has last place. Third place goes to the Hitachi E7K1000 again. This drive is better than its mate with 16MB cache under server loads. The enterprise model from Samsung is good, too, but its firmware needs improvement as it has problems at long queue depths.
The 4-platter Seagate is beyond competition at low loads among the “slow” drives. The 5-platter Hitachi outperforms it at high loads (thanks to effective deferred writing) and the Green drive from WD with 32MB cache joins the fight then. The other Green series drives are slower.
The final ratings are interesting, too. Third place goes to the 4-platter Seagate 7200.11 rather than to the Hitachi E7K1000. The WD Caviar Green with 32MB cache takes fourth place, being somewhat ahead of the two drives from Hitachi with the same amount of cache memory. The other HDDs have similar ratings, but the two drives from Seagate with slow heads and the 4-platter Caviar Green with 16MB cache are slower.
Summing up the server tests, good firmware and a larger cache buffer are important factors for success. And if the drive combines them with quick heads, it will be unbeatable.
The change of load affects the standings: the enterprise Western Digital RE3 is better than the desktop Caviar Black. And third place goes to the Samsung F1 DT which has not been brilliant so far.
The Caviar Green with 32MB buffer outperforms every other 5400rpm drive as well as the Hitachi 7K1000.B.
When the test zone is limited, the Caviar Black rolls back to third place, giving way to the Hitachi E7K1000. The Samsung F1 DT is worse now while the 3-platter Seagate 7200.11 is closer to the leaders. The Green drives can only beat the Seagate SV35.3 in this test.
