Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
Web-Server, File-Server, Workstation Patterns
The drives are tested under loads typical of servers and workstations.
The names of the patterns are self-explanatory. The Workstation pattern is used with the full capacity of the drive as well as with a 32GB partition. The request queue is limited to 32 requests in the Workstation pattern.
The results are presented as performance ratings. For the File-Server and Web-Server patterns the performance rating is the average speed of the drive under every load. For the Workstation pattern we use the following formula:
Rating (Workstation) = Total I/O (queue=1)/1 + Total I/O (queue=2)/2 + Total I/O (queue=4)/4 + Total I/O (queue=8)/8 + Total I/O (queue=16)/16.
This is the consequence of the increased speeds: early SSDs are as fast as ordinary HDDs in this test and inferior to the server-oriented Fujitsu, but the X25-M leaves its opponents far behind.
By the way, the new SSD feels best at short queue depths, showing a performance jump.
The X25-M enjoys a sevenfold advantage over the closest opponent in terms of performance rating. HDDs just can’t deliver such performance.
As opposed to the previous load, the Web-Server pattern doesn’t have write operations, thus being ideal for SSDs. Samsung’s SSD is faster than the HDDs in this test while the X25-M delivers 4000 and more operations per second. Even if we imagine a RAID array with ideal scalability, it would take no fewer than eight SAS drives with a spindle rotation speed of 15,000rpm to overtake the X25-M.
The X25-M shows its preference for short queue depths again. There is only one unpleasant thing: the drive’s performance is somewhat lower at a queue depth of 32 requests than at zero queue depth.
The X25-M is eight times as fast as Samsung’s SSD, which is itself faster than any HDD in this test.
The new SSD from Intel is good in the Workstation pattern while Samsung’s SSD is slower than the hard disks. Note that while the HDDs are increasing performance along with the growth of the request queue, the SSDs are slowing down. This is especially conspicuous with the X25-M.
Our formula gives higher weights to the results achieved at small queue depths, so the X25-M enjoys a huge advantage over its opponents again.
When the test zone is limited to 32 gigabytes, the X25-M changes its behavior at small request queue depths. It begins to resemble HDDs then. At long queue depths its performance is higher than in the previous test, when it could use its full storage capacity.
The X25-M has a smaller advantage than in the previous test, yet it is still three times as fast as the closest of its opponents.
