#ssd benchmark

[polheurope]

Ssd benchmark

#Ssd benchmark update

We are using a SAS controller so one cannot compare results directly to consumer-driven setups where a SATA SSD is connected to an Intel PCH port.

Processors: Dual Intel Xeon E5-2690 (V2).

Since we are going to assume the use of already released hardware, we are using a legacy system for testing across the test suite given that we started the process before the Haswell-EP parts became available. Our goal is to continue posting one more per week in-between other articles and have started publishing enterprise SATA drive results also over the past few weeks.

2x Samsung SM1625 200GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

2x SanDisk Lightning 406s 400GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

2x Smart Storage System/ SanDisk Optimus 400GB MLC SAS SSD benchmarks.

2x Seagate Pulsar.2 200GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

2x SanDisk Lightning 206s 200GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

Toshiba PX02SMF040 400GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

Toshiba PX02SMF080 800GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

Samsung SM1625 200GB SAS SSD benchmarks.

Smart Storage System/ SanDisk Optimus 400GB MLC SAS SSD benchmarks.

Pliant/ SanDisk Lightning 406s 400GB SLC SAS SSD benchmarks.

Seagate Pulsar.2 200GB MLC SAS SSD benchmarks.

Pliant/ SanDisk Lightning 206s 200GB SLC SAS SSD benchmarks.

#Ssd benchmark update

The Seagate 1200 series of SAS SSDs are 12gbps capable drives that were a major update to the Pulsar.2 line which we previously benchmarked.įor reference here are the previously published SAS quick benchmarks: Single SAS SSD Benchmarks We have been finding some interesting differences in performance thus far and we are going to have an interesting finding today. Over the past few months we have been building a data set around SAS SSDs and admittedly, these are a late entry. The actual model name is the Seagate ST400FM0013 for these drives, but they are from the 1200 series. Today we are putting the Seagate 1200 400GB SAS SSD through our quick benchmarks. Seagate 1200 v Toshiba PX02SMF040 400GB ATTO Write Benchmark

[slimgreys]

Ssd benchmark

#Ssd benchmark how to

The write access test, however, is done with a 1 GB big test file. Finally the access time of the SSD is calculated, wherein the access to read over the entire capacity of the SSD (Full Stroke) is determined. In the first three synthetic tests and the compression test, the size of the test file 1 GB. This is especially for the controllers that use to increase the performance and life of the cell compression, important. The additional compression test can measure the power of the SSD in response to compressibility of the data. This test should SSDs pose with Native Command Queuing (NCQ), differences between the IDE operation mode where NCQ is not supported, and the AHCI mode. The 4K-64 corresponds to the test Thrd 4K procedure except that the read and write operations are distributed to 64 threads. 4K test the read and write performance is determined at random 4K blocks. CrystalDiskMark may shorten SSD/USB Memory life. In Seq-test the program measures how long it takes to read a 1 GB file to write respectively. About CrystalDiskMark CrystalDiskMark is a simple disk benchmark software. These tests are carried out without using the operating system cache. The synthetic tests determine the sequential and random read and write performance of the SSD. Two extra benchmark tests examine the drive's behaviour when copying a few big files, a lot of small files and a mixture of file sizes by using cached copy functions of your OS as well as reading/writing data depending on the data's compressibility. Additionally, it performs the tests using 1 or 64 threads and it determines the SSD's access time.

#Ssd benchmark how to

AS SSD Benchmark reads/writes a 1 GByte file as well as randomly chosen 4K blocks. This article is the last part of our article series explaining the principles of SSD performance testing and how to interpret the results of such tests. Test the sequential or random read/write performance without using the cache.

[connectlong]

Ssd benchmark

We primarily use m2.4xlarge to run Cassandra at Netflix today as it has the best balance of CPU, IO and RAM capacity for most of our workloads, although we have had to be careful not to overload the IO with maintenance operations by scheduling compactions and repairs in sequence across the nodes. AWS specifies relative total CPU performance for each instance type using EC2 Compute Units (ECU). The three options that we have previously tested for Cassandra are found in the m1.xlarge, m2.4xlarge, and cc2.8xlarge instances, and this is now joined by the new SSD based hi1.4xlarge. There are several existing storage options based on internal disks, these are ephemeral - they go away when the instance terminates. Today we are publishing some benchmark results that include a comparison of Cassandra running on an existing instance type to the new SSD based instance type. We were testing the scalability of the Priam tooling that we used to create and manage Cassandra, and proved that large scale Cassandra clusters scale up linearly, so ten times the number of instances gets you ten times the throughput. Last year we published an Apache Cassandra performance benchmark that achieved over a million client writes per second using hundreds of fairly small EC2 instances. Now that extremely IO intensive applications can be deployed, a commonly cited obstacle to running in the cloud has been removed. AWS has been competitive in instance memory capacity for a long time and is leading the industry in CPU performance along with 10GBit networks. With this announcement AWS makes it easy to provision extremely high I/O capacity with consistently low latency. Today AWS has launched a new Solid State Disk (SSD) based instance that addresses the need for high performance I/O, and we have run a few initial benchmarks to see how it shapes up. Benchmarking High Performance I/O with SSD for Cassandra on AWS