Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Performance in Intel IOMeter

Disk Response Time

IOMeter is sending a stream of requests to read and write 512-byte data blocks with a request queue depth of 1 for 10 minutes. The array processes a total of over 60 thousand requests, so we get a sustain response time that does not depend on the amount of cache memory.

There is something odd about the Samsung T166S disks. Judging by the awfully low response time at reading, they are working in the quiet mode (the drive’s actuator is slowed down by changing the shape of the current from meander to sinusoidal). Unfortunately, we couldn’t perform a new series of tests in the ordinary mode after we had found this effect. On the other hand, you will see the effect of this technology on the drive’s real performance at least in comparison with the older-series disks. Take note that the quiet mode has no effect on the response time at writing which is due to the multistep buffering of requests.

As for the other drives, the standings are absolutely the same irrespective of the array type. Hitachi is in the lead, followed by the two drives from Western Digital and Seagate. Samsung’s drives are at the bottom of the diagram, the model with an 8MB cache being somewhat faster than the model with a 16MB cache.

The drives behave in the same manner when writing to RAID0 and RAID10 arrays. The winner Hitachi is followed by the WD4000ABYS (take note of the difference between it and the older WD4000YS). The Seagate has the worst result here. The standings are different for RAID5 due to the complex sequence of actions for performing write requests. As a result, both disks from Western Digital are in the lead whereas the Hitachi proves to be the slowest of all.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]


Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment