Performance in Intel IOMeter DataBase Pattern

Using the DataBase pattern we measured the performance of the hard drives during read and write requests processing (with a changing ratio of reads/writes) and with a different request queue depth.

For a more illustrative analysis, I created three graphs for the three queue depths.

When the queue depth is only 1 request long, Hitachi 7K60 is overall better than the others. It only loses to Seagate Momentus when the writes share is 40-60%. This drive from Seagate takes the second place: it only slows down when the writes share is 80% and more. Among other devices, Hitachi 5K80, Hitachi 80GN, and Toshiba MK8025GAS look preferable. The latter drive is clearly slower than the other two at 0-40% writes share, but speeds up after that to outperform them at 50-80% writes share. We also see Hitachi 40GN occupying the last place. It is quite indifferent to the changes of the reads/writes ratio, although it is better than Toshiba MK8025GAS at low writes shares.

When the request queue depth equals 16 requests, we see some changes in the rankings. Hitachi 7K60 goes unrivalled again, as it only shows some weakness on 60% writes share. Seagate Momentus never loses its grip on the second place, and Hitachi 5K80 confidently occupies the third. The outsider has changed. Hitachi 40GN outperforms Hitachi 80GN when the writes share is below 70%. Toshiba MK8025GAS shows excellent “accelerating” qualities, starting from 40% writes share.

The graphs demonstrating the HDD performance in case of 256 requests queue depth haven’t changed much compared with the previous ones. Hitachi 7K60 is overall better than the other devices, and more Hitachi drives (of the DK23FB family) follow it. Seagate Momentus moved back to the fourth position and Hitachi 5K80 – to the fifth. There are no changes in the bottom of the table: Hitachi 40GN left the last place and looks better than Hitachi 80GN and Toshiba MK8025GAS that only speeds up at 50% and more writes share.