- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (29) |
- Share
I/O performance depends on a drive’s ability to quickly reposition its heads, as well as utilizing the Native Command Queuing feature. NCQ organizes and executes pending commands in a way that delivers maximum performance by minimizing head repositioning activity. The tool we use was made for Windows, but it can also be executed at the command line, which is beneficial for bulk testing of several drives.
Unlike other benchmarks, which run a pre-set sequence of commands to determine performance, IOMeter is “programmable.” This means that you have to tell the benchmark what to do and in what order. Some years ago, we started to use IOMeter profile files, which simulate certain hard drive workloads, and we’ll keep using these four profiles for database, file server, Web server and workstation workloads. The only two additions are streaming read and write tests, which we introduced a few months ago.
Profiles
| Read | Random | Block Size | Workers | |
| Database | 67% | 100% | 8 KB - 100% | 4 |
| Fileserver | 80% | 100% | 512 Bytes – 10% 1 KB – 5% 2 KB – 5% 4 KB – 60% 8 KB – 2% 16 KB – 4% 32 KB – 4% 64 KB – 10% | 4 |
| Web server | 100% | 100% | 512 Bytes – 22% 1 KB – 15% 2 KB – 8% 4 KB – 23% 8 KB – 15% 16 KB – 2% 32 KB - 6% 64 KB – 7% 128 KB – 1% 512 KB – 1% | 4 |
| Workstation | 80% | 80% | 8 KB - 100% | 4 |
| Streaming Reads | 100% | 0% | 64 KB – 34% 128 KB – 33% 256 KB – 33% | 4 |
| Streaming Writes | 0% | 0% | 64 KB – 34% 128 KB – 33% 256 KB – 33% | 4 |
The table looks complex, but is actually easy to read. The first column, “Read”, lists the amount of read versus write access. For example, 67% means that we are specifying about 2/3 read activity and 1/3 write access. The second column defines the percentage of random versus sequential access. 100% means that there is only random activity, which is the case for almost all server applications. The other extreme can be seen in the streaming reads and writes tests, where we want data to be read or written sequentially. The “Block Size” column lists the distribution of block sizes, which is used for each of the benchmark runs. Finally, the number of workers equals the number of threads used. Since we have a Core i7 quad core with Hyper Threading disabled, four workers seem to be best.
Example Results
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Min spec CPU for HTPC?
- Biggest Bottleneck
- Need suggestions on quality PSU
- Advice on a memory purchase?
- $1500-$1700 build
- can i get help to choose if these parts ive found work well etc
- Im newbie building my first system HELP!!
- Good build for the future?
- I got the 9800 GX2!!!!
- Raid 10 vs 15K SAS
- Old Raptors vs. New Raptors
- how do I know if my HD is operating at sata 3.0?
- High capacity HDD!!!
- Which HDD brand do you recommend?
Related articles
-
Tom's Storage Charts 2009: A New Test Environment
Our old 3.6 GHz Xeon is making way for a brand new X58-based Core i7 solution with PCI-X and PCIe, which we will use to test hard drives, SSDs, controllers, and other storage products. We introduce you to our new reference platform and talk about testing!
-
Find Your Notebook Hard Drive: 2.5" Performance Charts
We've had performance charts for 3.5" desktop hard drives. Today we extend this service and include 2.5" notebook hard drives.
-
Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assault
Intel's Core 2 might be the cure to Pentium pains, but it isn't necessarily the best choice for everyone. We test-drove 83 processors across a 37-benchmark parcours and once again offer the best processor comparison on the web.
Best offers
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $139.99 OfficeMax More info |
|
eGo Desktop Portable 1TB Hard Drive... | $115.99 Dell Home More info |
|
WD Elements External 1.5TB 3.5" Hard... | $139.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
My Passport Elite Portable 250GB 2.5"... | $79.99 Newegg.com More info |
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
These charts are a disaster. The same exact label is used to denote multiple drives. E.g., Western Digital Raptor or Seagate 7200.11 are each repeated over a half dozen times on each chart. Trying to find a specific model requires you to follow the product link over and over again on each chart. I gave up, still not sure if the one I was interested in is even listed.....
woot charts ! now we need gpu ones ( i dont mind waiting til Q2 is over )
Loving the reinstatement of the 'article index' drop down menu... But I think someone needs to smooth out the rough edges. Minor points, but ones I will make nonetheless.
First, the dimensions are such that you have vertical AND horizontal scroll... kinda annoying.
Second, the 'index button' width is slightly smaller than the actual drop down menu that appears. So if you click the down arrow and move your cursor directly down (which because of the width issue, is not over the drop down menu) it deselects the index and it disappears. ARGGHHH
These charts are a disaster. The same exact label is used to denote multiple drives. E.g., Western Digital Raptor or Seagate 7200.11 are each repeated over a half dozen times on each chart. Trying to find a specific model requires you to follow the product link over and over again on each chart. I gave up, still not sure if the one I was interested in is even listed.....
He's right, and if I select WD and Samsung as filters, and then choose a benchmark, I get all the HDD listed and i have to choose my filters every time I select a benchmark. The old chart system before the site was "pimped" was way better then this.
The charts are bad, but the last version was bad too. The one before that was fine though.
I said we'd get harddrive review this week and lo and behold pappa was right.
I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)
I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)
ye but I'd gladly trade the menu for the old layout with avatars and less gray on gray.
Yay! drop down menu is back!
Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?
yeah avatars would be nice to help break up the monotonous comment section. its just one big blob of text.
WHAT HAPPENED TO OCZ DRIVES!!! Did Intel slip some money under the table?
Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?
Jane said there was a chance, but she didn't promise.
there has to be a better way to do this. all i care about is real world performance. these charts are useless.
The charts are useless if you don't know what you need. Yes. But they wouldn't be useless to most of us if we could see which model was performing how well. I know what I need to care most about is average read speed on all my drives except the system one, where access time is relevant as well.
Ditto on the useless chart theme!!!
No numbers for Intel power consumption!???? what a joke. C'mon Tom's surely you can do better.
I don't get two things.
1. If this is a test bed then shouldn't you be using the fastest CPU available to you? Also I believe the i920 has a 4.8GT/s, so it can be a limiting factor when you are testing other components.
2. Why are you not including the Intel SSD's They have been around for a while and they are still missing from your SSD charts.
No Intel SSD numbers at all! that's got to be the biggest oversight in the history of the universe.