Web-Server, File-Server, Workstation Patterns
The controllers are tested under loads typical of servers and workstations.
The names of the patterns are self-explanatory. The request queue is limited to 32 requests in the Workstation pattern. Of course, Web-Server and File-Server are nothing but general names. The former pattern emulates the load of any server that is working with read requests only whereas the latter pattern emulates a server that has to perform a certain percent of writes.
The Promise has no chance in the File-Server pattern when working with mirror arrays. It is slower irrespective of the array type. An interesting fact, this controller delivers the same performance with the RAID1 and the single drive, but the HighPoint’s RAID1 is far faster than the single drive. The HighPoint seems to be able to fetch data from the disk that can produce them faster.
The HighPoint is ahead with RAID0 at this load.
The HighPoint is still in the lead even with RAID5. It loses more speed with the degraded array than its opponent does.
The HighPoint controller wins with RAID6, too. It loses more speed than its opponent when the array degrades but retains its leadership due to the higher performance of the original array.
The HighPoint controller increases its lead when there are no write requests.
We’ve got the same leader with RAID0, too.
The HighPoint has worse scalability than the opponent when it comes to RAID5 but it is still in the lead anyway. Take note of the big performance hit suffered by the degraded arrays.
We’ve got the same leader with the normal RAID6 arrays but the degraded arrays are faster on the Promise controller at low loads. The performance of the degraded arrays is much lower than that of the normal arrays. The performance hit is bigger than with RAID5. This is logical as the controller has to do much more calculations.