Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Enterprise Performance

Intel SSD 710 Tested: MLC NAND Flash Hits The Enterprise
By

You'll see periods of low activity in any type of workload, even in enterprise applications. However, more so in data centers than desktop workstations it's safe to expect random access with a large number of outstanding I/O operations.

In random reads, the SSD 710 offers similar performance to the 320, even at higher queue depths.

Writes are another story, though. Once we move to a queue depth of four (effectively 16, since we're using four workers), the SSD 710 starts to pull ahead of the 320. But, at best, it's only able to achieve a 20-30% lead. Obviously, that's not enough to match the speed of SATA 6Gb/s SSDs, which makes sense since Intel's proprietary controller is a 3 Gb/s device.

Why does the SSD 710 appear to outperform the SSD 320 when its write spec is supposed to be less aggressive? In enterprise-class applications, the system always writes random data to the entire LBA space, since the SSD has a tendency to be empty (consider the drive used as a cache). As the LBA space increases, random write performance drops because the controller needs to perform more disk operations, such as garbage collection, to maintain health and performance. Conversely, consumer drives are at least partially filled with persistent data, which is why performance is measured in a fixed LBA space. However, we're testing relative performance, so the LBA test space is fixed to just 16 GB.

Subjected to a database workload, the SSD 710 offers better performance than its consumer-oriented counterpart, but speeds are still relatively (and understandably) poor compared to competing SATA 6Gb/s-based SSDs. When we stripe two 710s, performance improves, though not linearly. At best, performance in RAID 0 still falls short of SLC-based SSDs like the P300.

The file server profile employs a more read-heavy workload, which is why the 710 scales better in RAID. However, this is also an area where most SATA 6Gb/s SSDs really shine.

This is particularly evident at the extreme end, where the Vertex 3 hits ~33 000 IOPS. That's 5000 IOPS higher than two 710s in RAID. Though the Vertex 3 isn't directly comparable here, the Vertex 3 Pro would be, and it performs very similarly. That drive still has to prove itself in an enterprise environment, though. When we surveyed data centers for Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive?, all of them were running Intel drives. Intel is unquestionably the incumbent in a competition that puts reliability on a higher pillar than raw speed.

The Web server profile is similar to the previous file server workload. It's composed of 100% reads and gives more weight to smaller transfer sizes. As a result, we finally see a case where a pair of 710s in RAID 0 can surpass the SLC-based P300 and speedy Vertex 3. However, this only occurs at queue depths higher than 16. In a single-drive configuration, the SSD 710 only leads the 320 by a small margin.

Display all 30 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -3 Hide
    whysobluepandabear , October 31, 2011 4:46 AM
    TLDR; Although expensive, the drives offer greater amounts of data transfer, reliability and expected life - however, they cost a f'ing arm and a leg (even for a corporation).

    Expect these to be the standard when they've dropped to 1/3rd their current price.
  • 4 Hide
    RazorBurn , October 31, 2011 6:48 AM
    To some companies or institutions.. The data this devices hold far outweighs the prices of this storage devices..
  • -3 Hide
    nekromobo , October 31, 2011 8:14 AM
    I think the writer missed the whole point on this article.

    What happens when you RAID5 or RAID1 the SSD's??
    I don't think any enterprise would trust a single SSD without RAID.
  • -2 Hide
    DjEaZy , October 31, 2011 8:29 AM
    ... glad, that i have vertex 3...
  • 0 Hide
    halcyon , October 31, 2011 10:04 AM
    Nice. Now let's see how many comments complain about the price. :sarcastic: 
  • 0 Hide
    halcyon , October 31, 2011 10:13 AM
    __-_-_-__with the reliability those have they will never ever find their way into any server

    My Vertex 3 has been very reliable and I'm quite satisfied with the performance. However, I've heard reports that some, just like with anything else, haven't been so lucky.
  • -2 Hide
    toms my babys daddy , October 31, 2011 11:50 AM
    I thought ssd drives were unreliable because they can die at any moment and lose your data, and now I see that they're used for servers as well? are they doing daily backups of their data or have I been lied to? ;(
  • 1 Hide
    halcyon , October 31, 2011 11:57 AM
    toms my babys daddyI thought ssd drives were unreliable because they can die at any moment and lose your data, and now I see that they're used for servers as well? are they doing daily backups of their data or have I been lied to? ;(

    SSDs are generally accepted to be more reliable than HDDs...at least that's what I've been lead to believe.
  • 0 Hide
    Onus , October 31, 2011 12:33 PM
    halcyonSSDs are generally accepted to be more reliable than HDDs...at least that's what I've been lead to believe.

    Yes, but when they die, that's it; you're done. You can at least send a mechanical HDD to Ontrack (or a competing data recovery service) with a GOOD chance of getting most or all of your data back; when a SSD bricks, what can be done?
  • 2 Hide
    CaedenV , October 31, 2011 12:48 PM
    nekromoboI think the writer missed the whole point on this article.What happens when you RAID5 or RAID1 the SSD's??I don't think any enterprise would trust a single SSD without RAID.

    The assumption is that ALL servers will have raid. The point of this article is how often will you have to replace the drives in your raid? All of that down time, and manpower has a price. If the old Intel SSDs were about as reliable as a traditional HDD, then that means that these new ones will last ~30x what a traidional drive does, while providing that glorious 0ms seek time, and high IO output.
    Less replacement, less down time, less $/GB, and a similar performance is a big win in my book.
    toms my babys daddyI thought ssd drives were unreliable because they can die at any moment and lose your data, and now I see that they're used for servers as well? are they doing daily backups of their data or have I been lied to? ;(

    SSDs (at least on the enterprise level) are roughly equivalent to their mechanical brothers in failure rate. True, when the drive is done then the data is gone, but real data centers all use RAID, and backups for redundancy. Some go so far as to have all data being mirrored at 2 locations in real time, which is an extreme measure, but worth it when your data is so important.
    Besides, when a data center has to do a physical recovery of a HDD then they have already failed. The down time it takes to physically recover is unacceptable in many data centers. Though at least it is still an option.
  • 5 Hide
    CaedenV , October 31, 2011 12:52 PM
    Oh! I almost forgot; GREAT review Andrew! I learned a lot on this one.
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , October 31, 2011 2:09 PM
    Lied to about what? And who are THEY? ... Life expectancy of SSD vs. Standard Harddrive? Thats always unknown, every unit is an animal unto itself. SSD's don't suffer mechanical issues however putting them ahead in my mind. Backups are determined by how much time you can afford to loose business-wise, how much data you have and how long it takes to recover to a point you backup at last. maybe your data is too valuable to have lost. In that case Mirror and even copy to a DR site, maybe even live. Best thing would probably be to trust your IT guy because you kinda seem lost :) 
  • 0 Hide
    halcyon , October 31, 2011 2:10 PM
    jtt283Yes, but when they die, that's it; you're done. You can at least send a mechanical HDD to Ontrack (or a competing data recovery service) with a GOOD chance of getting most or all of your data back; when a SSD bricks, what can be done?

    Its funny you mention that. Ontrack purports that they are quite adept at recovering SSDs.
  • -1 Hide
    mt2e , October 31, 2011 2:15 PM
    profit margins must be huge for a product with a simple memory swap
  • 0 Hide
    phate , October 31, 2011 7:04 PM
    So what's the difference between this and the P400e?
  • -2 Hide
    ruddenberg , October 31, 2011 7:40 PM
    Andrew Ku! Get the facts correct please !!!!

    Intel® SSD 710 Series 300/200/100GB
    Random Read (8GB Span) = no info
    Random Read (100% Span) = 38500/38500/38500 IOPS
    Random Write (8GB Span) = no info
    Random Write (100% Span) = 2000/2700/2300 IOPS

    Intel® SSD 320 Series 600/300/160/120/80GB
    Random Read (8GB Span) = 39500/39500/39000/38000/38000 IOPS
    Random Read (100% Span) = 39500/39500/39000/38000/38000 IOPS
    Random Write (8GB Span) = 23000/23000/21000/14000/10000 IOPS
    Random Write (100% Span) = 150/400/600/400/300 IOPS

  • -3 Hide
    cmartin011 , October 31, 2011 7:51 PM
    This is the best intel could come up with? i know reliability is important and all, but make the performance worth the price. at those dollar $ a much quicker PCI express solution could be afforded with some sorta redundant feature build in.
  • 1 Hide
    acku , October 31, 2011 9:16 PM
    ruddenbergAndrew Ku! Get the facts correct please !!!!Intel® SSD 710 Series 300/200/100GBRandom Read (8GB Span) = no infoRandom Read (100% Span) = 38500/38500/38500 IOPSRandom Write (8GB Span) = no infoRandom Write (100% Span) = 2000/2700/2300 IOPSIntel® SSD 320 Series 600/300/160/120/80GBRandom Read (8GB Span) = 39500/39500/39000/38000/38000 IOPSRandom Read (100% Span) = 39500/39500/39000/38000/38000 IOPSRandom Write (8GB Span) = 23000/23000/21000/14000/10000 IOPSRandom Write (100% Span) = 150/400/600/400/300 IOPS

    Read page 8. we covered that already.
  • 1 Hide
    campb292 , November 1, 2011 1:53 AM
    I find all the comments about data recovery very bizarre. What data would someone supposedly keep on a SSD (or HDD for that matter) that meets a threshold to warrant expensive data recovery in the event of failure, but not so sensitive to warrant a backup?

    My important info has a fresh original image and 2 daily backups that automatically create 12 hours apart. It takes about 5 minutes each and costs 29.99 a year. Come on people.
  • 0 Hide
    beenthere , November 1, 2011 1:55 AM
    This looks like more "experimenting" to see what enterprise will tolerate than a technical breakthrough. So far neither consumer grade nor the Intel 710 enterprise SSD impress me for performance, reliability and compatibility. It's certainly a painfully slow development on SSDs. Using consumers to beta test these drives is pretty unscrupulous IMO.
Display more comments