Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Performance in FC-Test

For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the drive and formatted in NTFS. A file-set is then created, read from the drive, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the drive is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.

You should be aware that the copying test not only indicates the speed of copying within the same disk but is also indicative of the latter’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the disk is processing two data threads then, one for reading and another for writing.

The X25-E is unrivalled at writing, especially when it comes to processing large files which are hard to hide in the OS’s cache. As for the others, the Kingston prefers large files whereas the WD products prefer small ones of roughly the same size. The 256GB model from WD looks better than its junior cousin. The Intel X25-V delivers its specified speed, which is rather low by today’s standards, both when single and in the RAID array. 

The X25-V based RAID is just excellent at reading. It is nearly as fast as 300 MBps when reading large files. No other SSD can reach such a high speed due to the limitations of the interface. Take note that the single X25-V performs poorly, often finding itself in last place. The Kingston is not good with small files. The WD drives are better in such patterns.

The X25-E wins the copying test, obviously thanks to its excellent speed of writing. The Western Digital team performs well, too. The Kingston again finds it hard to match its opponents’ performance with small files.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment