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 ]

Performance in FC-Test

For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the SSD and formatted in NTFS and then in FAT32. A file-set is then created, read from the SSD, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the SSD 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.

We’d like to note that the copying test is indicative of the drive’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the SSD is working with two threads (one for reading and one for writing) when copying files.

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

This test produces too much data, so we will only discuss the results achieved with the Install, ISO and Programs file-sets in NTFS. You can use the links below to view the full results:

As we’ve written already, this test is far from representative. The HDDs all have awfully low speeds due to the specific combination of the load and the controller’s driver.

Still, we can see a few HDDs that are slower than the main group. These are the 147GB Fujitsu MBA3 RC, Seagate’s NS.2, 146GB 15K.4 and 73GB 15K.5, and the Hitachi 15K147. We cannot see any regularity here, but both HDDs with no deferred writing are in this slower group. But why are the other three HDDs so slow? It is also unclear why the 300GB Fujitsu MBA3 RC has such a huge advantage and why the Maxtor is so good, too.

It is all simple at reading: a higher recording density leads to a higher speed of sequential reading, so the HDDs from Seagate’s two latest generations, the Seagate NS.2 and the Hitachi 15K450 are in the lead. This rule is only really true for the ISO file-set, though. It’s different with smaller files where the Hitachi 15K300 joins the group of leaders. Interestingly, the Maxtor is last notwithstanding its very low response time. Its firmware is optimized for server loads rather than for reading files.

We’ve got the same trio of leaders when copying within the same partition: the Seagate 15K.7 is in the lead, followed by two disks from the previous generation. The Hitachi 15K450 and Seagate NS.2 are fighting for fourth place in the Install and ISO patterns but give way to the 73GB Fujitsu MBA3 RC in the Programs pattern.

The 73GB Seagate 15K.5 and Hitachi 15K147 lack deferred writing and lose this test completely. The old Seagate 15K.4 is on the losing side, too.

We see a similar picture when copying from one partition to another: the top and bottom tiers contain the same models. The only difference is the surprisingly good performance of the 300GB Seagate 15K.5 in the Programs pattern.

 
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