Web-Server and File-Server Patterns
The drives are tested under loads typical of servers. The names of the patterns are self-explanatory. The results are presented as performance ratings which are calculated as the average speed of the drive under every load.
We have abandoned the old Workstation pattern because PCMark offers more detailed and up-to-date tests.
We don’t see any surprises here. The results might be predicted if you know the read response time of each HDD. And to rank the HDDs up even more accurately, you could look up what HDDs were more effective at long request queue depths in IOMeter: Database. So, the two top places are occupied by the three-platter models WD Caviar Black and Seagate Constellation ES.
The File-Server pattern has some write requests and does not produce as clear a picture as the previous pattern. As you can see, the Seagate Barracuda LP and Constellation ES do not speed up much at queue depths up to 32 requests long, unlike the other HDDs. The Samsung shows a mediocre performance. We know of its scalability problems from IOMeter: Database, but now we’ve got one more confirmation of that fact. Take note of the Hitachi: the newer firmware works better at high loads. The aligned WD Caviar Green is competitive to the other power-efficient products.
Overall, the WD Caviar Black series is in the lead, the 3-platter models with older firmware enjoying a considerable advantage.