SanDisk Optimus Eco SSD: A SAS Interface And Up To 2 TB Of Flash

Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency

SanDisk claims that its Optimus Eco is well-suited for read-heavy apps, so delivering solid random read results is going to be important. Much like Seagate's 600 Pro, the Eco needs a queue depth of 16 before its performance really starts taking off, though. Beyond that point, it serves up outstanding I/O numbers, topping out in excess of 97,000 IOPS. That bests the rest of the field by nearly 14,000 IOPS.

The story of random write performance is similar, though the results are much closer. SanDisk and Seagate are both slower than Intel's models at lower queue depths. But the Optimus Eco eventually catches up to the SSD DC S3700 800 GB to eke out a win, even if it's only by 1000 IOPS. Overall, we have to give this round to Intel, if only because of its superior performance at low queue depths.

SanDisk's Optimus Eco and Intel's SSD DC S3700 basically achieve the same average response time. They deliver excellent performance and are both clearly ahead of the 200 GB SSD DC S3700 and 600 Pro. Maximum response time is also a near-draw as the 800 GB Intel drive leads by less than one-half of a millisecond.

With one page of testing complete, we're already getting more excited about SanDisk's enterprise-oriented SSD. For almost a year, we've praised Intel's SSD DC S3700 for its excellent performance. But the Optimus Eco is matching it at almost every turn.

  • tripleX
    When aming this statement, did you take Littles Law into consideration:
    Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms)
    Reply
  • jkrui01
    toms, your are full of sh*t , consider this as my last read on your site, why not put the samsung pro in the article? because it would win, cheaper and faster.
    Reply
  • danwat1234
    7 watts active power consumption? With the word 'Eco' on the front? Ummm huh? Non-eco SSDs only take maybe 3.5w at full tilt and less than 2w when idle, often around 1w or less
    Reply
  • Haserath
    12177235 said:
    toms, your are full of sh*t , consider this as my last read on your site, why not put the samsung pro in the article? because it would win, cheaper and faster.

    The Samsung Pro is not an enterprise drive. They were comparing Intel's enterprise drive vs Sandisk's.
    Reply
  • utomo
    Samsung 1tb need to be reviewed and compare. The price is much cheaper
    Reply
  • robert3892
    4000 dollars for a 2TB drive? Even in the enterprise I see very few companies rolling out cash for something like this when a mechanical enterprise style hard drive can be bought for far less.
    Reply
  • drewriley
    12177473 said:
    7 watts active power consumption? With the word 'Eco' on the front? Ummm huh? Non-eco SSDs only take maybe 3.5w at full tilt and less than 2w when idle, often around 1w or less

    Many consumer SATA drives are a lot less, but enterprise drives aren't always quite that low. The S3700, at 800GB, is 6W typical and 8W burst. The Eco isn't quite as 'eco' at 400GB, but for 2TB, is actually pretty good. Many of the PCIe add-in SSDs that provide better performance at the same capacity are at least 10-15W and sometimes 25W. There aren't a lot of 6Gbps SAS SSD comparisons, now that 12Gbps drives are out, but even the Toshiba MK line is rated at 6.5W. We plan on doing more power consumption testing in the future.
    Reply
  • drewriley
    12178862 said:
    Samsung 1tb need to be reviewed and compare. The price is much cheaper

    As was said earlier, the Samsung 840 products are not enterprise class. They do not provide the endurance or power loss protection. They could possibly be used in workstations, but not beyond that. Samsung does offer the 843T, but that product is more in line with the Intel S3500 and does not have the random write performance to come close to the Eco. The 843T is also much more expensive than the 840 series.
    Reply
  • drewriley
    12180251 said:
    4000 dollars for a 2TB drive? Even in the enterprise I see very few companies rolling out cash for something like this when a mechanical enterprise style hard drive can be bought for far less.

    When comparing to HDD, there isn't a single SSD that will come close on price, enterprise or not. On the flip side, there isn't a single HDD that can come close on performance either. In order to get that much flash storage, you were previously limited to multiple SSDs or PCIe add-in cards, the Eco allows you to have that capacity in a smaller form-factor while drawing less power. Considering the $/GB, which is in line for it's class, it makes sense since there are plenty of enterprise customers buying 800GB drives, at least enough that companies keep producing them.
    Reply
  • drewriley
    12173519 said:
    When aming this statement, did you take Littles Law into consideration:
    Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms)

    No, we didn't, but can you be a little more clear with your question? I am not an expert in the area, but the law, as it applies to performance testing, is valid if the number of jobs in the system is equal to those being completed. Meaning that no new jobs are created in the system and no jobs are lost forever. So, if jobs were being lost, you might see consistent performance centered around the bottleneck, which is not the device under test. Since the system is artificially creating and tracking IOs, I don't believe any are being lost or accidentally created. Also, with our Enterprise Video testing, which I wrote to test a specific use-case, the data is generated and validated as it is written, so there is no chance of data loss. If that doesn't answer your question, please let me know, I am always interested in new subjects....
    Reply