Comparative performance analysis of drives PCI-E SSD, SSD and HDD
Improving performance of the disk subsystem is the most topical issue today. This is caused by the low cost of HDD that takes a leading position in the mass segment. More than a half of the resource-intensive applications have a "vulnerable spot" that are the spindle drives. In this case, everything does not depend on the bandwidth of SATA interface, but it depends on the physical capabilities of the mechanical components of the magnetic disk. The bandwidth of SATA-II and SATA-III interfaces makes 300MB/s and 600MB/s respectively, and the maximum performance that can provide a regular HDD does not exceed 150MB/s. Therefore, the transition to SATA-III-interface will be reasonable only for SSD, but it is not suitable for everyone.
In order to evaluate and to test the effectiveness of different types of disk subsystems were chosen following solutions:
1. OCZ RevoDrive X2 PCI-E SSD 100Gb
2. Plextor PX-128M2S SSD 128Gb
3. Transcend TS64GSSD25S-M SSD 64Gb
4. 4 x Transcend TS64GSSD25S-M RAID-0
5. WD Caviar Green SATA-II HDD 750Gb
6. 4 x WD RE4 1TB 7200RPM RAID-0
Here are charts below that show the performance of solutions in different modes of testing:
Random, 4KB, Queue Depth = 1
Random, 4KB, Queue Depth = 32
Windows System Performance Rating
We can do a series of conclusions from the test results:
• It is obvious that the vulnerable spot of spindle drives is random reading / recording of small data blocks.
• Also, SSD is much better in reading than in recording: for example: RevoDrive did not show the manufacturer's speed record 690MB/s, but it has RAID-0 of4 SSD.
• If the work requires the sequential recording of large data blocks, then the most effective solution will be RAID-0 of 4 HDD 7200RPM.
• For a quick reading perfectly will fit SSD or RAID of SSD. The operating system that was installed on OCZ RevoDrive X2 is loaded in seconds. This device gets up to 800 megabytes per a second at the peak reading speed.
• Plextor PX-128M2S that is connected over SATA-III showed significantly higher results, than through the interface of SATA-II. This is a case, where the vulnerable spot may be the interface.
• It is best to make it combined for the maximum performance of disk subsystem, as well for each task to select a certain type of disks and to organize RAID for the requirements of performance and fault tolerance.
I'm grateful to Usikoff for his original post
|Vote for this post
Bring it to the Main Page