Performance Consistency

Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we don’t have consistent IO latency with SSD is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.

To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.

We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.

Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the buttons below each graph to switch the source data.

For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.

  Intel SSD Pro 2500 Intel SSD 530 Intel SSD 335 Samsung SSD 840 EVO Crucial MX100
Default
25% OP -

The SF-2281 continues to offer excellent IO consistency. It takes over 20 minutes of 4KB random writes before the Pro 2500 begins the transition to steady-state, which is slightly better compared to the SSD 530.

  Intel SSD Pro 2500 Intel SSD 530 Intel SSD 335 Samsung SSD 840 EVO Crucial MX100
Default
25% OP -

 

  Intel SSD Pro 2500 Intel SSD 530 Intel SSD 335 Samsung SSD 840 EVO Crucial MX100
Default
25% OP -

TRIM Validation

To test TRIM, I filled the drive with incompressible sequential data and proceeded with 60 minutes of incompressible 4KB random writes at queue depth of 32. I measured performance after the torture as well as after a single TRIM pass with Iometer by running a 60-second 128KB incompressible sequential write pass.

Intel SSD Pro 2500 Resiliency - Iometer Incompressible Sequential Write
  Clean After Torture (60 min) After TRIM
Intel SSD Pro 2500 240GB 274.9MB/s 42.2MB/s 132.0MB/s

The TRIM issue has not changed. Again it is not a problem unless you use software encryption because otherwise there will always be compressible data, but given the Opal and eDrive support in the Pro 2500, I do not see why anyone would opt for the Pro 2500 if the plan is to utilize software encryption.

Introduction, The Drive & The Test AnandTech Storage Bench 2013
POST A COMMENT

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • mmrezaie - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    good for samsung. Reply
  • CrystalBay - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    Good article as always Hellhound, Yes 850 P is wanted . Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    As always, not a single real world test to tell us the tangible difference of this drive versus others. Reply
  • hojnikb - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    Intel really dropped the ball on whole consumer ssd business.
    And now this drive. This thing doesn't even have a single intel component inside. So pretty much, this is a Sandforce drive with Intel badge on it.
    Reply
  • Krysto - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    Intel has dropped the ball on all consumer markets lately. They're losing billions a year subsidizing Atom, just to be price-competitive with ARM chips, and now they're a full year behind with Broadwell, which won't see mainstream shipping until first half of 2015. Also, Broadwell sucks, too. But that won't stop Intel from making bombastic claims about it, which I can already see ("HALF the power consumption of Haswell" - but with much lower performance, which we won't tell you about, until you've already been suckered into buying one). Reply
  • tarqsharq - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    I remember when they slipped up with the P4 "NetBurst" architecture. Trying to win the Ghz wars.

    Maybe AMD will have a chance to come back on the chip end, I like their low end solutions that are coming out, and I miss being able to be an AMD fan boy and not be ignoring reality.
    Reply
  • hojnikb - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    > They're losing billions a year subsidizing Atom, just to be price-competitive with ARM chips, and now they're a full year behind with Broadwell, which won't see mainstream shipping until first half of 2015.

    Heh, i was not aware of that. It seems, that Intel needs to put its priorities right. :)
    Reply
  • nonoverclock - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    Wow. Exaggerate much and have an axe to grind? "Losing billions a year"? "Broadwell sucks, too" - I haven't read that review yet can you link to it? Reply
  • extide - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    I think Krysto takes Charlie as "FullyAccurate" hahaha

    Although, I do think Intel just needs to ditch Atom and come up with a custom IP ARM core, build a SoC out of it, put gen 7 graphics, a modern radio, etc. It will be great!
    Reply
  • Samus - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    Intel is the second most profitable tech company in the world, only beaten by Apple. I don't think the SSD business is their priority anymore. They did their job with the X25, jump starting the SSD race. They needed to do this because hard disks were becoming such a bottleneck that it was literally holding them back from selling performance CPU's.

    I predict they will exit the SSD market now that they've propped it up. This drive is clear proof of just that.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now