Now let’s see what we have at writing.
The HighPoint is faster at writing very small data chunks to mirror arrays but the Promise copes better with larger data chunks.
The same goes for RAID0. It’s good that both controllers show good scalability.
The three-disk RAID5 arrays are faster on each controller than the four-disk RAID5 arrays. The degraded arrays are almost as fast as the ordinary arrays: our practice agrees with the theory here. The HighPoint is ahead of its opponent everywhere.
The degraded arrays are considerably slower than the ordinary ones when it comes to RAID6. The minus-two arrays are even slower than the minus-one arrays. The controller seems to adjust its algorithms and works under higher load when this type of array degrades. And the HighPoint controller is against far faster than the Promise.
The Promise works better with very large data chunks when writing to mirror arrays. It gets closer and then overtakes its opponent as the data chunk grows larger.
The HighPoint controller has some problems with RAID0: the two-disk array is ahead of the thee-disk one on some data chunks and shows record-breaking performance overall. The Promise is overall better than the opponent, though. And it behaves far more predictably.
The degraded RAID5 array is faster than the three-disk RAID5 and just a little slower than the full four-disk one on each controller. The Promise is good with every size of the data block whereas the HighPoint shows firmware defects on very large data blocks.
The same goes for RAID6: the HighPoint has problems with very large data chunks, and the degraded arrays are almost as fast as the normal ones.