Iometer read-performance analysis
Busting out Iometer and looking at the read performance first:| IOMeter - 64KB sequential read speed | ||
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Spinpoint F1-DT 750GB | Intel X25-M SSD 80GB | Corsair P256 SSD 256GB |
| 78.5 | 212.36 | 173.97 |
Using a 64KB file size and evaluating the sequential read speed, we observe that the mechanical 750GB Samsung drive competes reasonably well. The multi-channel controllers on the Corsair and Intel SSDs storm ahead however, and Intel's speedy X25-M has the beating of the Corsair. Still, moving 1GB in 6 seconds is hardly slow for large-block transfers.
For the following numbers we're running an 8GB section on the drive with the IO depth set to 3, and tests were run for 60 seconds.
| IOMeter - 4KB random read speed | ||
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Spinpoint F1-DT 750GB | Intel X25-M SSD 80GB | Corsair P256 SSD 256GB |
| 0.48 | 57.97 | 55.48 |
Add some granularity by requesting the drive(s) perform a random read operation for 4KB files and the intrinsic benefits of SSDs become abundantly clear. The mechanical hard-drive grinds to a halt when grabbing small files located across the platters, having to move the heads on a random basis, but both SSDs produce impressive results. It's obvious why SSDs perform well in an enterprise environment.
| IOMeter - IOPS (read) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Spinpoint F1-DT 750GB | Intel X25-M SSD 80GB | Corsair P256 SSD 256GB |
| 122.38 | 14839 | 14204.1 |
Random-read IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second) is an indirect benchmark pertaining to seek times, and both SSDs obliterate the mechanical drive's score.
| IOMeter - average read latency | ||
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Spinpoint F1-DT 750GB | Intel X25-M SSD 80GB | Corsair P256 SSD 256GB |
| 24.51 | 0.2 | 0.21 |
| IOMeter - maximum read latency | ||
|---|---|---|
| Samsung Spinpoint F1-DT 750GB | Intel X25-M SSD 80GB | Corsair P256 SSD 256GB |
| 46.46 | 0.77 | 1.07 |
Read latency, too, is undeniably impressive.
