Window 7 seems to have got a bit more sophisticated at measuring storage performance (for everyday use). The assessment does not detect platter geometries, raid configuration, or storage technologies; the results are based solely on measured performance of the OS drive(s). The emergence of SSD is however something that is taken into account in the assessment.
The following tests have been added:
• Full random read and write assessments.
• Sequential write assessments
• Disk flush policy assessments (mixed reads and writes)
Apparently there is a glitch in write cache settings (maybe fixed already in 7100)
From MS
On the matter of write caching, we very much believe it is a mistake that the WinEI score improves dramatically when write caching is disabled. We don't recommend disabling write caching and are working to understand how best to prevent the scores from improving so dramatically simply by disabling the cache. We do know, that write caching typically helps best with large sequential reading sequences and that disabling the cache prevents the build up of background work that may later interfere w/ subsequent reads. In other words, with caching disable we don't see the very long IOs that result in our capping the score at a low level.
From MS
With respect to disk scores, as discussed in our recent post on Windows Performance, we’ve been developing a comprehensive performance feedback loop for quite some time. With that loop, we’ve been able to capture thousands of detailed traces covering periods of time where the computer’s current user indicated an application, or Windows, was experiencing severe responsiveness problems. In analyzing these traces we saw a connection to disk I/O and we often found typical 4KB disk reads to take longer than expected, much, much longer in fact (10x to 30x). Instead of taking 10s of milliseconds to complete, we’d often find sequences where individual disk reads took many hundreds of milliseconds to finish. When sequences of these accumulate, higher level application responsiveness can suffer dramatically.
With the problem recognized, we synthesized many of the I/O sequences and undertook a large study on many, many disk drives, including solid state drives. While we did find a good number of drives to be excellent, we unfortunately also found many to have significant challenges under this type of load, which based on telemetry is rather common. In particular, we found the first generation of solid state drives to be broadly challenged when confronted with these commonly seen client I/O sequences.
An example problematic sequence consists of a series of sequential and random I/Os intermixed with one or more flushes. During these sequences, many of the random writes complete in unrealistically short periods of time (say 500 microseconds). Very short I/O completion times indicate caching; the actual work of moving the bits to spinning media, or to flash cells, is postponed. After a period of returning success very quickly, a backlog of deferred work is built up. What happens next is different from drive to drive. Some drives continue to consistently respond to reads as expected, no matter the earlier issued and postponed writes/flushes, which yields good performance and no perceived problems for the person using the PC. Some drives, however, reads are often held off for very lengthy periods as the drives apparently attempt to clear their backlog of work and this results in a perceived “blocking” state or almost a “locked system”. To validate this, on some systems, we replaced poor performing disks with known good disks and observed dramatically improved performance. In a few cases, updating the drive’s firmware was sufficient to very noticeably improve responsiveness.
To reflect this real world learning, in the Windows 7 Beta code, we have capped scores for drives which appear to exhibit the problematic behaviour (during the scoring) and are using our feedback system to send back information to us to further evaluate these results. Scores of 1.9, 2.0, 2.9 and 3.0 for the system disk are possible because of our current capping rules. Internally, we feel confident in the beta disk assessment and these caps based on the data we have observed so far. Of course, we expect to learn from data coming from the broader beta population and from feedback and conversations we have with drive manufacturers.
For those obtaining low disk scores but are otherwise satisfied with the performance, we aren’t recommending any action (Of course the WEI is not a tool to recommend hardware changes of any kind). It is entirely possible that the sequence of I/Os being issued for your common workload and applications isn’t encountering the issues we are noting. As we’ve said, the WEI is a metric but only you can apply that metric to your computing need
EDIT: It is possibe to run Win 7 WEI on Vista by copying winsat.exe and winsat.exe.mui to the target system.
WinSAT.Exe is in %systemroot%\system32 and its corresponding english MUI file in %systemroot%\system32\en-us.
EDIT 1:
1.9 corresponds to having either
- IOs greater than 600 milliseconds, or
- mean IO >= 22milliseconds and 95th percentile IO >= 40 milliseconds
At 2.9, this corresponds to either
- IOs greater than 520 millseconds
- Mean IO >= 11 milliseconds and 95th percentile IO >= 33 milliseconds
5.0 to 5.9 represents disks with a good sequential read performance and a good write flush policy. Most mechanical drives are expected to show performance that is rated under 5.9.
6.0 to 6.9 represents the expected performance for storage devices that have very good random I/O performance.
7.0 to 7.3 maps to the best performing, currently shipping devices in terms of sequential and random I/O performance.
EDIT 2: Windows 7 & SSD http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/200...rives-and.aspx
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Sandon
(
Bookmarks