Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(0) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Web-Server, File-Server and Workstation Patterns

The controllers 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.

We will be discussing diagrams but you can click the following links for details results and performance ratings:

Well, it’s hard to name a winner here. The Hitachi is in the lead at short queue depths but the WD4000ABYS goes ahead at long queue depths. Take note that its results under high load are far better than those of its predecessor WD4000YS. Samsung’s HDDs are on the losing side, the “quiet” T166S being somewhat faster than its predecessors. The latter two do not differ notwithstanding the different amount of cache memory.

With RAID10 we’ve got the same leaders and losers. But the HD400LJ is now far slower than its opponents, including the same-series model with a 16MB buffer.

There is the same picture with RAID5 as with RAID0. Samsung’s T133S series drives are equals again.

There are write requests now, and Western Digital’s HDDs take top positions at every queue depth. Otherwise, the standings have not changed.

There are no changes when we switch to RAID10. Interestingly, the 8MB version of the Samsung T133S drive is as fast as its 16MB counterpart here.

The Hitachi slows down in the RAID5 array just as we might expect by its Database results. It is now hardly any faster than the slowest HDDs.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment