Random and sequential speeds with IOmeter

[Tiltevros]

Ok in LSI 9211 threat u asked to do a test with randoms reads..

here is some results from my array

[SteveRo]

71K+ random 4K reads - 1486 MB/s random 64K - wow, that is pretty nice!
Where is the 20K+ pcmark vantage run!!!

[Computurd]

well i dont think there is a need to run those numbers on a single ssd. there isnt a ssd in the world that will get even close to those numbers^^^^

[Computurd]

new drivers released

[Tiltevros]

+ 7-10 MB for me in random speeds with new drivers (windows 2008 server drivers)

[Ao1]

I'm not sure if I did this correctly. 100% randon reads @ 4K for 30 seconds.

Single X25-M 160GB



I've monitored my qd quite carefully and no matter what I do it does not go above 7 and for the vast majority of the time it is hovering around 1 to 2.
No doubt I would get caned at higher qd's but speeds at higher qd's are just not relevant to me so I'm not bothered.

(Tiltevros - sorry don't mean to high jack your thread.)

[GullLars]

Really nice numbers tilveros. I will copy what i said in the other thread about that spreadsheet:
At 4KB random you hit the IOPS roof at QD=24, at wich point you get 72928 IOPS @ 0,3001ms and 0,7904ms max. Those are really impressive numbers!
What also impresses me about this controller is from QD=1 to QD=10 you only gain 0,0233ms average latency.
It's also really nice you are able to exceed 1000MB/s @ < 1ms for 16-64KB random.

Now i would just like the numbers of a single x25-M on 9211 for comparing the scaling of multiple devices (the integrated RAID overhead). From what i can tell by just looking at the numbers, you have great scaling untill you hit the IOPS roof. For the larger packet sizes it seems the scaling reaches diminishing returns around QD = ([Devices]*[10(channels)])/([block size]/[4KB]), wich is where you start to see channel saturation.


Unfortunately we can't directly compare accesstime scaling by QD compared to a single x25-M with your 7-drive RAID, but using the related number for a 8-drive setup should not give large deviations. By simply calculating [RAID accesstime]/[singeldrive accesstime] for the same QD/#drives we should get the RAID overhead.

[Tiltevros]

Did you use the 4k 100% read 0% random on the global access specifications to run you tests? How long did you run them for?
Can you let me know how to set the qd?
if possibel coudl you email be the iometer config file?

@ audienceofone

the configuration that i run is simple just use the profiles that iometer has like 512b 4k (make one with 8k) 16k 32k and just set the queue depth and change from sequential to random the ramptime that i used is 5 sec
and the test is set @ 30 sec. and just copy ur results to an excel. simple as this

@ gullars

the think that is blows my mind is that with intel G1 x25m the latency that u r getting is 0,08ms but i have 0,064ms.... can anyone explanes me why????

[Tiltevros]

now i will run SEQUENTIAL test to see the results.. those drives are working for everyday enterprise useage.. and i havent touch them to erase from september.. (btw i dont know how to HDDerase also lool)

[Ao1]

now i will run SEQUENTIAL test to see the results.. those drives are working for everyday enterprise useage.. and i havent touch them to erase from september.. (btw i dont know how to HDDerase also lool)

that is what I did: Access Specifications > Add 4k 100% read 0% random> Edit > change to 100 random. QD 1 to 4. No ramp up and a 30 second run per qd.

[Computurd]

tiltervros is not getting the same results as you with the 9211 because he does not have cache or burst speeds that you are getting with the ich10r. it is best to run with a ramp up of 5 seconds as well. my 4k still outstrips that intel.

[Tiltevros]

I miss one drive though :P

[Tiltevros]

Sequential read speeds

[Ao1]

Standard test. 2 mins with 5 second start up.

[Computurd]

wow very interesting results there audience of one. i wish we could compare access time too with that, as the single ssd seems to have higher access times with QD increases, at least on my setup.
i must admit im a little suprised at that chart, but also we need to take into consideration that tilt's array is very degraded, he told me the other day he hadnt secure/sanitary erased it since he has recieved the drives, and he hasnt done any trim functions, either. not sure if that is what the issue is with the scaling or not though.
we need access tiems comparisons !~!!!
@tilt!! did you use the sanitary erase i gave ya? lets see any differences!
(BTW tilt technet for 251 USD use promo code TNWIN7L)

[Tiltevros]

New personal Record

[Tiltevros]

OK here is the new results ..

[Anvil]

Good results, I had expected more though.
It could be related to the new firmwares and mixing G1+G2, anyway the scores are great.

iops_qd_single_vs_raid0_9211_x2_qd32_2.png

[Tiltevros]

btw i did a new record in pcmark Vantage in HDD suite 50k+ last record was 44k
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcmv=271468

all the test that i did are with stock setting (S7025 cant be overclocked :'( )

[Anvil]

Radar graph of the scores.

The radar diagram takes some getting used to but it's really informative.

iops_qd_9211_random_iops_radial.png

[Ao1]

Good results, I had expected more though.

Same here. It's still slower than a single x25 below qd4, but those high qd speeds are exceptional. Nothing comes even close on the wei scores for reads (apart from the ioxtreme)

I'm a bit surprised at how well the Vertex array compares at low qds on the 9211.

[Tiltevros]

u r forgeting something my friends... im on stock performance pcie 100 latency 64 and 1066Mhz of ram those results with vertex are on high overclocked pc
now versus the 160GB ur drive is G2 right??? my arrays takes times from G1 with 400TB allready write drive ;D

[Ao1]

hey, no one is knocking it....far from it

[Levish]

Standard test. 2 mins with 5 second start up.

Are those 512KB results or 512B? I'm guessing 512B since 5MB/sec is pretty low for 512KB tests.

BTW I think you can attach the saved config for iometer so we can compare the same tests. I was thinking of even making one that would simulate a couple games :p

WoW, ME1 and ME2 (you can tell I'm excited right?)

[Ao1]

Are those 512KB results or 512B? I'm guessing 512B since 5MB/sec is pretty low for 512KB tests.

BTW I think you can attach the saved config for iometer so we can compare the same tests. I was thinking of even making one that would simulate a couple games :p

WoW, ME1 and ME2 (you can tell I'm excited right?)

^ dooh, B. I will change that later.

Those configs are standard on Iometer. Look at the Access Specification tab and then select what you want to test from the global access specifications. You can edit a standard test to change parameters to random or write etc from there.

Anandtech use a custom config as detailed here. We should create something like this so we can all test the same thing