Web-Server, File-Server and Workstation Patterns
The drives are now going to be 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 created on it. 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.
It is easy to make a brief comment on this read-only test. Everything depends on the drive’s response time and ability to process a request queue.
The standings do not change much when there are some write requests in the load although the SSDs differ more here. The Samsung-based Super Talent falls behind, being effectively “killed” by the request queue (quite expectedly so, considering its graph from the IOMeter: Database test). Kingston’s SSDs are all very slow. Even the best of them, the one based on the Toshiba controller, is but slightly better than ordinary desktop HDDs, judging by its performance rating.
The standings do not change under the workstation load, either. There are but minor exchanges of places among the Indilinx-based models. The different type of load makes one important difference for the outsiders: the JMicron-based SSDs are just downright slow whereas the Toshiba and Samsung controllers deliver higher performance and are superior to HDDs. The Toshiba looks surprisingly good under this load, the V+ series drive outperforming the same-brand models.