Micron M500DC 800 GB SSD Review: Cloud And Web 2.0 Storage
Building on the desktop-oriented M500, Micron is announcing its enterprise-focused M500DC. We got a chance to run the 800 GB model through an updated test suite to gauge whether this Marvell-powered SSD keeps up with the best-known enterprise solutions.
How We Test Micron's M500DC
| Test Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E), 32 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
| Motherboard | Intel DX79SI, X79 Express |
| Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws Z-Series (4 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600 @ DDR3-1600, 1.5 V |
| System Drive | Intel SSD 320 160 GB SATA 3Gb/s |
| Host Bus Adapter | LSI SAS 9300-8e |
| Tested Drives | Micron M500DC 800 GB |
| Comparison Drives | Micron P400m 200 GBIntel SSD DC S3500 480 GBIntel SSD DC S3700 800 GBSanDisk Optimus Eco 400 GBSeagate 600 Pro 200 GB |
| Graphics | AMD FirePro V4800 1 GB |
| Power Supply | OCZ ModXStream Pro 700 W |
| System Software and Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate |
| DirectX | DirectX 11 |
| Driver | Graphics: AMD 8.883 |
| Benchmark Suite | |
| Iometer v1.1.0 | Four Workers, 4 KB Random: LBA=Full, Span Varying Queue Depths |
| ATTO | v2.4.7, 2 GB, QD=4 |
| Custom | C++, 8 MB Sequential, QD=4 |
| Enterprise Testing: Iometer Workloads | Read | Write | 512 Bytes | 1 KB | 2 KB | 4 KB | 8 KB | 16 KB | 32 KB | 64 KB | 128 KB | 512 KB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Database | 67% | 100% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 100% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| File Server | 80% | 100% | 10% | 5% | 5% | 60% | 2% | 4% | 4% | 10% | n/a | n/a |
| Web Server | 100% | 100% | 22% | 15% | 8% | 23% | 15% | 2% | 6% | 7% | 1% | 1% |
The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), a working group made up of SSD, flash, and controller vendors, has a testing procedure that attempts to control as many of the variables inherent to SSDs as possible. SNIA’s Solid State Storage Performance Test Specification (SSS PTS) is a great resource for enterprise SSD testing. The procedure does not define what tests should be run, but rather the way in which they are run. This workflow is broken down into four parts:
- Purge: Purging puts the drive at a known starting point. For SSDs, this normally means Secure Erase.
- Workload-Independent Preconditioning: A prescribed workload that is unrelated to the test workload.
- Workload-Based Preconditioning: The actual test workload (4 KB random, 128 KB sequential, and so on), which pushes the drive towards a steady state.
- Steady State: The point at which the drive’s performance is no longer changing for the variable being tracked.
These steps are critical when testing SSDs. It’s incredibly easy to not fully condition the drive and still observe out-of-box behavior, which may lead one to think that it’s steady-state. These steps are also important when going between random and sequential writes.
For all performance tests in this review, the SSS PTS was followed to ensure accurate and repeatable results.
All tests employ random data, when available. Micron's M500DC does not perform any data compression prior to writing, so there is no difference in performance-based data patterns.
For comparison purposes, we evaluated the M500DC against similar products from Micron, Intel, SanDisk, and Seagate.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: How We Test Micron's M500DC
Prev Page A Look Inside Micron's M500DC Next Page Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency-
ParrLeyne Good article/review!Reply
Only one _small_ problem. According to the Micron product page (http://www.micron.com/products/solid-state-storage/enterprise-sata-ssd/m500dc-enterprise-sata-ssd) the M500DC is a SATA device, not SAS! -
tripleX The author obviously does not understand the subject matter. SAS lumped in with SATA? read-centric SSD isnt meant for read workloads? etc. numerous errors, too many to list.Reply -
tripleX Author does not understand what "corner case" is. corner case testing? are you doing lab validation work?Reply -
drewriley In SSD testing, it is common to call the mix in testing between read/write and random/sequential as '4 corner' or 'corner case' testing. And yes, this is lab verification work, that is kind of the point of the review. Also, SAS and SATA do compete for applications. The point was to put different product that had similar specifications against one another.Reply -
tripleX Reply13279486 said:In SSD testing, it is common to call the mix in testing between read/write and random/sequential as '4 corner' or 'corner case' testing. And yes, this is lab verification work, that is kind of the point of the review. Also, SAS and SATA do compete for applications. The point was to put different product that had similar specifications against one another.
The fact you are claiming this is anything even remotely near lab validation exposes your tremendous lack of knowledge on the subject.
No one refers to 4-corner testing as corner case testing. One link to a reputable site that does so? Instead of arguing an indefensible point you should be attempting to learn exactly what corner case means. Most would have had the good sense to do that before posting.
SAS v SATA is like Formula 1 compared to Go-Karts. Another example of your lack of understanding. SAS is meant for users who require certain features, and the price demands that users are aware of those features. They do not compete against each other, they are two entirely different classes of hardware.
-
tripleX The fact you are claiming this is anything even remotely near lab validation exposes your tremendous lack of knowledge on the subject.Reply
No one refers to 4-corner testing as corner case testing. One link to a reputable site that does so? Instead of arguing an indefensible point you should be attempting to learn exactly what corner case means. Most would have had the good sense to do that before posting.
SAS v SATA is like Formula 1 compared to Go-Karts. Another example of your lack of understanding. SAS is meant for users who require certain features, and the price demands that users are aware of those features. They do not compete against each other, they are two entirely different classes of hardware.