Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: I/O Performance

Another Record Broken: 6 Gb SAS, 16 SSDs, 3.4 GB/s!
By

The new LSI 9260-8i might not have been optimized for a database type workload yet, as it fails to deliver the performance level of Adaptec’s RAID 5805. We found the simpler 9210-8i from LSI more impressive in this benchmark, as it beats the Adaptec card, delivering almost 45,000 I/O operations per second. The database benchmark consists of 67% read and 33% write access using only 8 KB blocks.

Once we switch to the file server scenario, the cached and fully-featured MegaRAID 9260-8i does better, outperforming both its little brother and the Adaptec RAID 5805. The file server benchmark pattern is based on many different block sizes between 512 bytes and 64 KB, with 80% read and 100% random operation. You need an intelligent engine to optimize this for type of access.

What a result! The Web server test does not involve any write operations, which is favorable for performance. LSI’s uncached 9210-8i blows away the two others, but keep in mind that the RAID 0 is rather insecure. All of these benchmarks should be taken as experimental, providing an outlook on the possible performance levels, rather than representing a truly useful scenario.

Both LSI cards are much faster in our workstation benchmark pattern, delivering 54-73% better performance than the same SSDs on the Adaptec RAID 5805.

Please read the article Tom’s Storage Charts 2009: A New Test Environment for detailed information on the benchmarks.

Display all 38 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 6:54 AM
    Holy cow, how much for the total damage?
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 8:31 AM
    It would be good to get a benchmark with a Windows XP/Vista/7 showing how long to boot the OS, various games, file copy speed... etc Fair enough these give fast throughput but where are the real world results?
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 8:32 AM
    What about some photos of the raid itself?
  • -6 Hide
    amdfangirl , August 26, 2009 9:51 AM
    That's... such an overkill...
  • 6 Hide
    climber , August 26, 2009 11:28 AM
    Personally, I would like to see a "Part II" to this article showing RAID 5, 6 and 10 setups with the same tests. No database admin or graphic designer, animator or CAD/CAM/GIS professional is going to use RAID 0 with it's inherent vulnerability, or at least they shouldn't.
  • 1 Hide
    amnotanoobie , August 26, 2009 11:29 AM
    faceholeIt would be good to get a benchmark with a Windows XP/Vista/7 showing how long to boot the OS, various games, file copy speed... etc Fair enough these give fast throughput but where are the real world results?


    I think with the cost of such a setup these would be ideal for a web or application server, or maybe a small data center. Booting Win 7 would be the least of your problems.
  • -5 Hide
    megahunter , August 26, 2009 11:56 AM
    what vga was used?
  • 0 Hide
    cah027 , August 26, 2009 12:46 PM
    I wonder if this is the type of storage used in super computers or render farms ?
  • -1 Hide
    GullLars , August 26, 2009 2:03 PM
    "None of the SSDs currently available support Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) or 600 MB/s transfer speeds"
    False: STEC's Zeus IOPs, and BitMicro's E-Disk Altima support SAS (Zeus supports SAS 6 Gbit). Though these cost about 3-5x more pr GB.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 2:30 PM
    could it be that the computer's integrated graphics card is also connected to that bus and utilizes some bandwidth?

    Another question I had is if you really notice a difference running whatever program on 2,2GB/s or 3,4GB/s? Even slow Vista should fly there.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 2:40 PM
    Excellent article, thanks
  • 6 Hide
    meatwad53186 , August 26, 2009 3:01 PM
    I don't know about anyone else, but I would like to see Tom's including more pictures of the hardware actually in the Tom's office, set up, and being used in some of the articles that get posted.
  • 0 Hide
    bounty , August 26, 2009 3:28 PM
    So what you need now is for Intel to hook you up with another 6 drives and you can load up the onboard SATA controller, raid 0 that with the others. Or switch platforms to something designed for Quad SLI then really load up on the drives (plus onboard SATA of course.) I say dial up the ridiculous, then see how long it takes to boot/load games. New hobby for the super overclockers, make fastest raid 0 setup.
  • -1 Hide
    sseyler , August 26, 2009 4:35 PM
    I'd like to see the actual setup myself, as well..
  • 0 Hide
    viometrix , August 26, 2009 5:08 PM
    id love to see this myself as well...
  • 0 Hide
    tixarn1 , August 26, 2009 6:53 PM
    faceholeIt would be good to get a benchmark with a Windows XP/Vista/7 showing how long to boot the OS, various games, file copy speed... etc Fair enough these give fast throughput but where are the real world results?


    As I've said before, it's not all a hardware RAID and thus isn't bootable.
  • -1 Hide
    Major7up , August 26, 2009 7:39 PM
    I would love to see some high end Mobo's that incororate these new controllers to leave your PCIe slots free. I would bet it would not be cheap but it certainly would be awesome!
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 10:17 PM
    16x Intel X-25 E will set you down approx €10.000
  • -3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 10:18 PM
    16x Intel X-25 E will set you down approx €10.000
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , August 26, 2009 10:19 PM
    16x Intel X-25 E will set you down approx €10.000
Display more comments