Intel NAS Performance Toolkit
Here is yet another high-level test. Intel NAS Performance Toolkit contains a set of traces to benchmark any storage device, not only NASes. It uses the standard OS mechanisms of accessing storage devices, so the test platform and the software installed on it affect the results.
By the way, Windows 7 uses caching for writing data to a disk and reports to the test tool that data has been written before it is actually written. Therefore the time an HDD takes to pass the test may be smaller than the amount of time the HDD actually spent, and the results may be higher than in the low-level tests.
The Caviar Blue WD10EALS is somewhat surprisingly ahead in the read test although the rest of the HDDs are close to each other, the Barracuda LP ST31000520AS being the only exception. When copying a whole folder, three disks from WD and the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS go ahead while the Barracuda LP ST1000DL002 falls behind.
The WD team wins once again, the Barracuda LP ST1000DL002 being the only Seagate drive to offer any resistance in the file copy test.
WD’s drives are unrivalled again. The Barracuda 7200.12 series are inferior to the 5900RPM Barracuda LP models.
This is in fact a sequential reading test.
The Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS slow down again when switching from reading to writing.
The RE4 WD1003FBYX, Caviar Black WD1002FAEX and Caviar Blue WD10EALS take the podium at multithreaded load. They are followed by the energy-efficient HDDs together with the Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000524AS and Caviar Blue WD10EALX. The Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS and Caviar Black WD1001FALS are the slowest drives here.
As opposed to IOMeter, the WD drives are ahead at multithreaded reading, the Caviar Blue WD10EALS being the winner. This is due to the difference in load: the data threads are close to each other with NASPT whereas IOMeter puts them 100 gigabytes apart from each other.
The Caviar Blue WD10EALS isn’t good for office applications, though. The RE4 WD1003FBYX is expectedly on top.
The results are close, yet the standings do not look right to us after the earlier tests.