Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
Database Patterns
In the Database pattern the disk array is processing a stream of requests to read and write 8KB random-address data blocks. The ratio of read to write requests is changing from 0% to 100% (stepping 10%) throughout the test while the request queue size varies from 1 to 256.
You can view tables with the results by the following links:
We’ll discuss the results for queue depths of 1, 16 and 256.
At high percentages of reads the slowed-down Samsung cannot compete with the others under low loads in RAID0. The Western Digital RE3 is good again, boasting very effective deferred writing. The Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (it is quite faster than its enterprise counterpart), Hitachi and Western Digital RE2 stand out among the others.
As soon as there is a queue of requests, the Samsung joins the others and delivers modest performance. The Western Digital RE3 is splendid still, although the Seagate 7200.11 is competitive to it at high percentages of reads. The Seagate ES.2 behaves somewhat oddly: it is as fast as the leaders at pure random reading but slower than them at other loads. Its behavior is different from that of its desktop counterpart and it has a sudden performance hit at pure random writing. There must be some flaw in its firmware algorithms.
The old Seagate 7200.10 is a loser in this test. It is slower than every other drive including its enterprise counterpart.
When the load is very high, Western Digital claims victory in RAID0. The Seagate 7200.11 is confidently second while its enterprise counterpart’s performance fluctuates wildly depending on the ratio of reads to writes, which is not normal.
The Seagate Barracuda 7200.10, the Samsung or the Hitachi sink to last place alternately depending on the ratio of reads and writes, yet the old desktop model from Seagate seems to be the overall loser.
The Seagate doesn’t feel good at reading in RAID10, too. It accelerates fast when the ratio of writes grows up but can’t reach the top position due to a slowdown at a very high percentage of writes.
The Western Digital RE3 is in the lead again. The other HDDs are similar to each other in this test, except that the old drives from Seagate are somewhat worse.
When the load grows higher, the picture resembles what we have seen with the RAID0 arrays: the Western Digital RE3 is in the lead, followed by the new desktop Seagate which is characteristically faster than its enterprise counterpart. The Seagate 7200.10 is the loser again.
We don’t see anything new at the maximum load. We’ve got the same leaders and the Seagate ES.2 still has a fluctuating performance except that it is now all right at high percentages of writes. The Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 is on the losing side, again. Interestingly, as opposed to Seagate’s new series, in the old series the enterprise model is faster than the desktop one, especially at high percentages of writes.
RAID5 is the most complex type of an array because each write request to the array is translated into four requests to the HDDs. Of course, the Samsung with its slowed-down heads is again much slower than the others at the queue depth of 1. We have the same leaders: Western Digital RE3 and Seagate 7200.11. Third place is contested by the Western Digital RE2 and Seagate ES.2. This is an odd contest as the Seagate ES.2 has such advantages as higher recording density and a larger cache, but Western Digital’s enterprise product seems to be very efficient at utilizing what resources it has.
The Samsung joins the others at the higher load, and all the three-platter drives, excepting the Western Digital RE2, go close to each other. The performance of the Hitachi and Seagate ES.2 grows up suddenly at pure reading. Note also that the Seagate ES.2 behaves more predictably in RAID5.
There are no changes in the standings at the maximum load.
Summing this test up, we must note the excellent results of the Western Digital RE3. If it is also that good with sequential operations, it is going to be the leader of this review despite the last-generation Seagate models having more cache memory and the same recording density.
The Western Digital RE2 must be noted, too. It is obviously the best among the three-platter products.
The Seagate 7200.10 seems to be the worst HDD in this test session so far. Curiously, its enterprise counterpart performs much better.
