Performance in Intel IOMeter DataBase Pattern
We will start with the DataBase pattern. Why with this one? Well, it reveals just perfectly the peculiarities of the HDD firmware, such as tagged command queuing, lazy writing, etc.
As usual. We will analyze the benchmark results under three types of workload:
Under linear workload (queue=1) the mass unit is considerably faster than the sample drive I n case the share of writes is quite big. This allows us to conclude that Maxtor software developers managed to improve the lazy write algorithms in firmware version DT60 quite a lot. Although, the same drive appeared faster in RandomRead mode also.
The second thing worth mentioning is the performance of both drives, which doesn’t depend on the type of the used controller.
Now let’s see what happens as the workload gets higher:
As you see, the performance difference between the mass product and the sample drive appears simply immense. The retail drive is much faster not only in case the share of writes is high, but also… in all other modes! :)
When the queue depth increases to 256 requests, the Adaptec 29160N controller drivers show that they suit better for the mass HDD, as it performed much faster with this controller. The sample drive is evidently slower than the mass product, however when working with the same Adaptec 29160N controller, it managed to show better results than with Adaptec 39320D controller (especially with high writes share).
Well, the results of Atlas 15K in DataBase pattern can be called excellent. Of course, I mean the retail product that we tested here.