Performance in Intel IOMeter FileServer and WebServer Patterns
Now let’s check the performance of Fujitsu MAS3735NP in server patterns. As usual we will begin with FileServer:
Note that the performance of our HDD with Adaptec 39320D controller remains unchanged for 64 and 256 outgoing requests and for both driver versions. But this totally contradicts the results obtained by Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 HDD (see our Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 Hard Disk Drive Review)!
Wait, and who told you that Fujitsu hard drive supports the queue depth offered by the controller? If the maximum queue depth, which can be processed by our Fujitsu drive, equals 32 requests, then the controller will have to limit the size of the requests packs sent to the drive to this particular number. And in this case it doesn’t matter what the driver actually supports…
Well, now we have to take a few much more precise measurements, i.e. to increase the workload much slower.
The rating is just a formality, but I still have to do it, to give you a better idea of our today’s testing participant’s performance:
The next thing to look at is the WebServer pattern. Let’s see if anything changes here:
Strange as it might seem, but the changes are evident: the results of our HDD running with the U320 controller and v.1.0 driver caught up with the results of the U160 controller. However, as soon as we install the v.1.1 driver the HDD slows down quite noticeably.
It is interesting, but I have always believed that WebServer pattern is “easier” for the drive, because it has no write requests at all. However, I seem to be mistaken: when it turns out that there are no writes among the incoming requests, the optimization of the requests queue gets much lower, because the firmware cannot perform lazy writing any more.