The next set of tests simulates different enterprise workloads, including database, file server, Web server, and workstation configurations.
Our Iometer 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.

The P320h maintains a steady lead over OCZ's Z-Drive R4 across all queue depths. This should come as no surprise given what we saw on the previous page, and considering that this workload is more heavily weighted towards reads.

The file server workload consists of 80% random reads of varying transfer sizes. Because the P320h has an advantage over OCZ's Z-Drive R4 in random reads, we thought these results would look a lot more like the database chart. To our surprise, though, the Z-Drive R4 holds its own against the P320h, edging it out at almost all queue depths.
Originally, we left off at a queue depth of 256. But after reviewing the results, it looked like the P320h had a little bit left in its proverbial tank. So, we reran the numbers at queue depths of 512 and 1024, too. Under that extra load, the P320h finally came out on top.


The Web server (100% read, varying transfer size) and workstation (80% reads, 80% random) workloads don't provide nearly as much drama. The P320h easily tops the Z-Drive R4 and SSD 910 at all queue depths.
- Meet Micron's P320h PCI Express-Based SSD
- Micron's 32-Channel Controller Simplifies PCIe-Based SSDs
- Micron's Firmware And Monitoring Software
- Test Setup, Benchmarks, And Methodology
- Measuring Write Endurance: SLC Wins Again
- 4 KB Random Performance
- Enterprise Workload Performance
- Sequential Performance
- Enterprise Video Streaming Performance
- Power Consumption
- Micron's RealSSD P320h: The Future Of Enterprise-Class SSDs?
Such an apples to oranges comparison...
It using SLC and geared towards enterprise market...
IMO it understandable price...
Such an apples to oranges comparison...
Kinda surprised something like this didn't come out first as it makes more sense....
really ? Increasingly, performance is basically dependent on extracting parallelism. Whether in storage or in CPU performance.
Desktop/Mainstream users just dont do so much in parallel that they can fully use all the hardware.
I see a purpose for 16 core processors. How are we going to otherwise be able to run Crysis 6?
Use a 5000 core GPU ?
????????!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the review, love to see this kind of advancement and a peak into the future new hardware brings with it, even if it isn't directly applicable to me at this point in time.
Can you put two of them in RAID0 ??
Signed,
Bonkers
It using SLC and geared towards enterprise market...
IMO it understandable price...
Eh, depending on how far in the future we're talking about, neither of those statements is iron-clad. In the case of a 16-core processor, it's pretty much guaranteed that we will eventually see one in the consumer space, at mainstream prices. Whether the extra cores on that CPU will offer any compelling benefit to the mainstream consumer is an open question, but at least those cores do offer meaningful performance benefits to hardcore multi-taskers.
Similarly, current consumer-grade SSDs offer very nearly instantaneous responsiveness already -- unless the user attempts to perform multiple disk-intensive tasks simultaneously. But who knows what the future holds? You could make a case that current enterprise-grade SSDs (or something similar to them) are far more likely to make a meaningful mark on the consumer market years from now than 16-core processors, because the benefits of CPU parallelism are limited in principle. By contrast, the benefit of storage speed is only limited by the speed of the components that rely on it; storage speed applies both to singular and parallel tasks.
That said, I agree with your sentiment if not with the particulars of your argument: my gut reaction to the article was that although 3.2 GB/sec is a very impressive number, I already feel like I'm flying at the ~0.5 GB/sec (at best) that I get out of my Intel 330. From the consumer perspective, performance comparisons between different SSDs almost always seem to me materially irrelevant, so it's hard to get too excited about the performance of an enterprise-grade SSD, even in the abstract.
Still, this is a worthy review of an interesting product. Appreciate the insight.
1989... 1MB of memory chips (card extra) was $100 wholesale !
We sold them by the boat load for Amiga computers.
And yes, that is 1 MegaByte...
an 8MB card retailed for $1,800 (and that's in 1989 Dollars).
I am glad you find it useful, it is something that I have always cared about and tested because I have been burned in the past.