The next pattern is both the longest and most informative, simulating work with an SQL database. The data block size is 8KB; the proportion of write/read operations as well as disk subsystem workload varies.

So, the results of this test can tell how well the drive manages random data block access.

The IBM/Hitachi HDDs have always been fast at seeking. Secondly, it is the only drive of the five that doesn’t use the entire platter area, so it has an advantage in average access time from the very beginning. If not for this, it would perform as fast as Samsung PL40. As for Samsung PL40 itself, it reads as fast as Maxtor DM+8, and writes even faster, having won the second prize here!

The ratio of average read access time to average write access time indicates the ability of the drive to accumulate and arrange write requests. In other words, it characterizes quantitatively the efficiency of lazy write algorithms.

And Samsung PL40 proves that it has the best lazy write algorithms of all participating devices. The IBM/Hitachi HDD follows right behind. The other Samsung comes the third, while Maxtor proved twice worse than the leader. As you remember, Maxtor hard disk drive was behind Samsung in SoundForge, too. As for Seagate, the situation is rather strange, really. The earlier sample with 3.00 firmware had 1.20 efficiency coefficient, better than the HDD with 3.06 firmware. However, the 3.00 HDD did considerably worse in SoundForge!

Now, let’s check the drives’ firmware and learn more about their “personality”.

When the workload is random, we have two leaders: IBM/Hitachi 180GXP and Samsung PL40. Samsung P40 is not bad either; the Seagate solution was perfectly indifferent to the type of workload, while Maxtor goes a bit down when write requests appear.