Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(5) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]

This pattern produces a variegated load typical of workstations. And the HDDs behave so differently at short queue depths that their graphs intertwine like lianas in a tropical forest. Let’s try to make out the most interesting things.

The most impressive fact is that the old Maxtor leaves no chance to any other HDD. Its superiority is obvious. The HDDs from Fujitsu and Hitachi feel good, too. Seagate’s team are not that successful. The old 15K.4 is the only Seagate to be competitive in this test while the later models, including the newest 15K.7, are rather unconfident. They like the server loads much more.

The performance ratings highlight the Maxtor’s huge advantage and the poor performance of the new generations of Seagate drives.

The situation is dramatically different when the test zone is limited to a 32GB partition. The Maxtor is very good again but only under low loads. As soon as there is a queue of about 7 requests, larger HDDs enjoy a considerable performance boost (a 32GB partition takes a much narrower zone on them due to the use of multiple platters and higher recording density).

The outcome of this test is highly illustrative: HDDs with high recording density and multiple platters get all the top places. First place goes to the super-dense 4-platter Seagate 15K.7. Take note that these test conditions help the Seagate NS.2 leave its last place, outperform all the 73GB models (excepting the sprightly Maxtor) and get very close to the 146GB models. It cannot match the 300GB, let alone 450GB, models, though.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 5
Discussion started: 10/26/09 06:40:26 AM
Latest comment: 10/28/09 06:08:59 PM

View comments

Add your Comment