Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance I ran a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length. These results are going to be the best indicator of large file copy performance.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (4K Aligned)

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (4K Aligned)

Again we see that low queue depth transfers don't stress the Z-Drive enough to flex its muscles.

Sequential Performance vs. Transfer Size (ATTO)

I stopped putting these charts in our reviews (although I do include the data in Bench) because they are generally difficult to read. Here we're only going to look at three drives though: a Vertex 3, RevoDrive 3 X2 and the Z-Drive R4 CM88:

Now we're starting to see something. If you can't scale with queue depth, scaling up the transfer size seems to do the trick. After about 64KB the Z-Drive R4 starts to pull away fro the RevoDrive 3 X2, peaking at just over 2.5GB/s!

Read performance is even more impressive: the Z-Drive R4 manages just under 3GB/s for 2MB transfer sizes.

Random Read/Write Speed AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Performance
POST A COMMENT

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • jdietz - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I looked up the prices for these on Google Shopping - $7 / GB.

    These offer extreme performance, but probably only an enterprise server can ever benefit from this much performance. Enthusiast users of single-user machines should probably stick with RevoDrive X2 for around $2 / GB.
    Reply
  • NCM - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    Anand writes: "During periods of extremely high queuing the Z-Drive R4 is a few orders of magnitude faster than a single drive."

    Umm, a bit hyperbolic! With "a few" meaning three or more, the R4 would need to be at least 1000 times faster. That's nowhere near the case.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    Correct. I've edited the text slightly, though even a single order of magnitude is huge, and we're looking at over 30x faster with the R4 CM88 (and over two orders of magnitude faster on the service times for the weekly stats update). Reply
  • Casper42 - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    Where do you plan on testing it? (EU vs US)

    Have you tried asking HP for an "IO Accelerator" ? (Its a Fusion card)

    I worked with a customer a few weeks ago near me and they were testing 10 x 1.28TB Fusion IO cards in 2 different DB Server upgrade projects. 8 in a DL980 for one project and 2 in a DL580g7 for a separate project.
    Reply
  • Movieman420 - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I see all these posts taking all kinds of punishment, please try and remember that ANY company that uses SandForce has the SAME issues, but since Ocz is the largest they catch all the flack. If anything, SF needs to beef up validation testing first and foremost. Reply
  • josephjpeters - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link

    Like I said before, it's really more of a motherboard issue with the SATA ports then it is a SF/OCZ issue. They designed to spec... Reply
  • Yabbadooo - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I note that on the Windows Live Team blog they write that they are moving to flash based blob storage for their file systems.

    Maybe they will use a few of these? That would definitely be a big vote of confidence, and the testimonials from that would be influential.
    Reply
  • Guspaz - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I have to wonder at the utility of these drives. They're not really PCIe drives, they're four or eight RAID-0 SAS drives and a SAS controller on a single PCB. They're still going to be bound by the limitations of RAID-0 and SAS. There are proper PCIe SSDs on the market (Fusion-io makes some), but considering the price-per-gig, these Z-Drives seem to offer little benefit other than saving space.

    Why should I spend $11,200 on a 1600GB Z-Drive when I can spend about the same on eight OCZ Talos SAS drives and a SAS RAID controller, and get 3840GB of capacity? Or spend half as much on eight OCZ Vertex 3 drives and a SATA RAID controller, and get 1920GB of capacity?

    I'm just trying to see the value proposition here. Even with enterprise-grade SSDs (like the Talos) and RAID controllers, the Z-Drive seems to cost twice as much per-gig than OCZ's own products.
    Reply
  • lorribot - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    I'm with you on this.

    What happens if a controller toasts itself wheres your data then?
    I would rather have smaller hot swap units sitting behind a raid controller.
    It is a shame OCZ couldn't supply such a setup for you to compare performance, or perhaps they know it would be comparable.

    Yes it is a great bit of kit but f I can't raid it then it is of no more use to me than as a cache and RAM is better at that, and a lot cheaper, $11000 buys some big quantities of DDR3.

    In the enterprise space security of data is king, speed is secondary. Losing data means a new job, slow data you just get moaned at. That is why SANs are so well used. Having all your storage in one basket that could fail easily is a big no, no and has been for many years.
    Reply
  • Guspaz - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link

    To be fair, you can RAID it in software if required. You could RAID a bunch of USB sticks if you really wanted to. There are more than a few enterprise-grade SAN solutions out there that ultimately rely on Linux's software RAID, after all. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now