Our next set of tests simulates different enterprise-oriented workloads, including database, file server, Web server, and workstation configurations.
The database workload (also categorized as transaction processing) involves purely random I/O. Its profile consists of 67% reads and 33% writes using 8 KB transfers.

Both Intel drives and SanDisk's Optimus Eco fare similarly when you average them out. Interestingly, though, the Eco enjoys its advantage at the start of this test, in sharp contrast to what we found testing 4 KB blocks of data randomly. Intel's SSD DC S3700 pulls away as queue depths increase, though.

The file server workload, which consists of 80% random reads of varying transfer sizes, yields a clear win in favor of the Eco. Better random and sequential read performance is enough to outpace Intel.

The Web server workload (100% reads, varying transfer sizes) closely follows the results of the file server workload, with the Eco finishing in first place.

Finally, the workstation benchmark (80% reads, 80% random) ends up in SanDisk's favor, particularly at the highest tested queue depths (although the Eco and SSD DC S3700s remain pretty much even up to a queue depth of 32).
These contrived workload tests demonstrate that SanDisk's Optimus Eco is ready to take on the competition in a number of different disciplines. We weren't sure if the Marvell controller, driven by a custom firmware, would hold up to Intel's entirely in-house-developed solution. But the results speak for themselves.
- Meet SanDisk's Optimus Eco SSD, With Up To 2 TB
- Under The Hood Of SanDisk's Optimus Eco
- SanDisk's Guardian Technology, Broken Down
- Testing SanDisk's Optimus Eco
- Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency
- Results: Performance Consistency
- Results: Enterprise Workload Performance
- Results: Sequential Performance
- Results: Enterprise Video Streaming Performance
- SanDisk Takes On Intel's Enterprise SSD Crown
Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms)
The Samsung Pro is not an enterprise drive. They were comparing Intel's enterprise drive vs Sandisk's.
Many consumer SATA drives are a lot less, but enterprise drives aren't always quite that low. The S3700, at 800GB, is 6W typical and 8W burst. The Eco isn't quite as 'eco' at 400GB, but for 2TB, is actually pretty good. Many of the PCIe add-in SSDs that provide better performance at the same capacity are at least 10-15W and sometimes 25W. There aren't a lot of 6Gbps SAS SSD comparisons, now that 12Gbps drives are out, but even the Toshiba MK line is rated at 6.5W. We plan on doing more power consumption testing in the future.
As was said earlier, the Samsung 840 products are not enterprise class. They do not provide the endurance or power loss protection. They could possibly be used in workstations, but not beyond that. Samsung does offer the 843T, but that product is more in line with the Intel S3500 and does not have the random write performance to come close to the Eco. The 843T is also much more expensive than the 840 series.
When comparing to HDD, there isn't a single SSD that will come close on price, enterprise or not. On the flip side, there isn't a single HDD that can come close on performance either. In order to get that much flash storage, you were previously limited to multiple SSDs or PCIe add-in cards, the Eco allows you to have that capacity in a smaller form-factor while drawing less power. Considering the $/GB, which is in line for it's class, it makes sense since there are plenty of enterprise customers buying 800GB drives, at least enough that companies keep producing them.
Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms)
No, we didn't, but can you be a little more clear with your question? I am not an expert in the area, but the law, as it applies to performance testing, is valid if the number of jobs in the system is equal to those being completed. Meaning that no new jobs are created in the system and no jobs are lost forever. So, if jobs were being lost, you might see consistent performance centered around the bottleneck, which is not the device under test. Since the system is artificially creating and tracking IOs, I don't believe any are being lost or accidentally created. Also, with our Enterprise Video testing, which I wrote to test a specific use-case, the data is generated and validated as it is written, so there is no chance of data loss. If that doesn't answer your question, please let me know, I am always interested in new subjects....