AnandTech Storage Bench 2011

Two years ago we introduced our AnandTech Storage Bench, a suite of benchmarks that took traces of real OS/application usage and played them back in a repeatable manner. I assembled the traces myself out of frustration with the majority of what we have today in terms of SSD benchmarks.

Although the AnandTech Storage Bench tests did a good job of characterizing SSD performance, they weren't stressful enough. All of the tests performed less than 10GB of reads/writes and typically involved only 4GB of writes specifically. That's not even enough exceed the spare area on most SSDs. Most canned SSD benchmarks don't even come close to writing a single gigabyte of data, but that doesn't mean that simply writing 4GB is acceptable.

Originally I kept the benchmarks short enough that they wouldn't be a burden to run (~30 minutes) but long enough that they were representative of what a power user might do with their system.

Not too long ago I tweeted that I had created what I referred to as the Mother of All SSD Benchmarks (MOASB). Rather than only writing 4GB of data to the drive, this benchmark writes 106.32GB. It's the load you'd put on a drive after nearly two weeks of constant usage. And it takes a *long* time to run.

1) The MOASB, officially called AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload, mainly focuses on the times when your I/O activity is the highest. There is a lot of downloading and application installing that happens during the course of this test. My thinking was that it's during application installs, file copies, downloading and multitasking with all of this that you can really notice performance differences between drives.

2) I tried to cover as many bases as possible with the software I incorporated into this test. There's a lot of photo editing in Photoshop, HTML editing in Dreamweaver, web browsing, game playing/level loading (Starcraft II & WoW are both a part of the test) as well as general use stuff (application installing, virus scanning). I included a large amount of email downloading, document creation and editing as well. To top it all off I even use Visual Studio 2008 to build Chromium during the test.

The test has 2,168,893 read operations and 1,783,447 write operations. The IO breakdown is as follows:

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload IO Breakdown
IO Size % of Total
4KB 28%
16KB 10%
32KB 10%
64KB 4%

Only 42% of all operations are sequential, the rest range from pseudo to fully random (with most falling in the pseudo-random category). Average queue depth is 4.625 IOs, with 59% of operations taking place in an IO queue of 1.

Many of you have asked for a better way to really characterize performance. Simply looking at IOPS doesn't really say much. As a result I'm going to be presenting Storage Bench 2011 data in a slightly different way. We'll have performance represented as Average MB/s, with higher numbers being better. At the same time I'll be reporting how long the SSD was busy while running this test. These disk busy graphs will show you exactly how much time was shaved off by using a faster drive vs. a slower one during the course of this test. Finally, I will also break out performance into reads, writes and combined. The reason I do this is to help balance out the fact that this test is unusually write intensive, which can often hide the benefits of a drive with good read performance.

There's also a new light workload for 2011. This is a far more reasonable, typical every day use case benchmark. Lots of web browsing, photo editing (but with a greater focus on photo consumption), video playback as well as some application installs and gaming. This test isn't nearly as write intensive as the MOASB but it's still multiple times more write intensive than what we were running in 2010.

As always I don't believe that these two benchmarks alone are enough to characterize the performance of a drive, but hopefully along with the rest of our tests they will help provide a better idea.

The testbed for Storage Bench 2011 has changed as well. We're now using a Sandy Bridge platform with full 6Gbps support for these tests.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload

The old VelociRaptor remained the fastest mechanical drive we'd tested using our heavy workload, and the new one pushed the bar up by another 31%. It's the SSD comparison that makes the VR a tough choice for a primary drive, but if you need a really fast hard drive to augment your SSD the VelociRaptor is quick. Note that the Momentus XT lacks write caching at this point, which hurts its chances in our write intensive heavy workload.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

Our new light workload actually has more write operations than read operations. The split is as follows: 372,630 reads and 459,709 writes. The relatively close read/write ratio does better mimic a typical light workload (although even lighter workloads would be far more read centric).

The I/O breakdown is similar to the heavy workload at small IOs, however you'll notice that there are far fewer large IO transfers:

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload IO Breakdown
IO Size % of Total
4KB 27%
16KB 8%
32KB 6%
64KB 5%

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

Once again we see a significant step forward compared to the old VelociRaptor, and any other hard drive for that matter. The new VR distances itself from its predecessor by 39% and from the fastest 7200RPM 3.5" drive we've tested by 55%. It's the almighty SSD that the VelociRaptor can't beat.

 

Random & Sequential Read/Write Speed PCMark 7 Performance & Power Consumption
Comments Locked

92 Comments

View All Comments

  • gammaray - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link

    Those drives dont make any senses at all at their pricing range. None whatsoever. at 300ish$ you can get an awesome SSD, fast and quite large relatively speaking.

    If you really need lots of GBs then one has to go with the 2-3Tbs for half the price.

    Even with a 25% cut i would never consider the new velociraptor offering.

    What are they thinking?
  • gammaray - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link

    Also,

    while it doesnt affect performance, SSDs are SILENT

    and silence is worth a lot.
  • JonnyDough - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    "There's just one problem: Moore's Law is driving the cost of SSDs down, and their capacities up. The shift to solid state storage is inevitable for most, but to remain relevant in the interim the VelociRaptor needed an update."

    Moore's Law is doing it? Really? All by itself? I'm sure it has nothing to do with economies of scale....

    Maybe someone should take some college courses and not try to sound so smart.
  • DukeN - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    Maybe a 16GB $50 caching SSD, perhaps?
  • superccs - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    a 1Tb WD Black or Samsung/Seagate F3 is $130 and they are fast.
    a 1Tb Raptor is ~$280 if you can find one....

    Is it 2x as fast or did WD just release a product with an impossibly small niche?

    We all know that the smaller SSD + 1Tb fast platter works well for system drives. Would anyone recommend this drive for that 1Tb duty over any of the competitors?
  • UberApfel - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    Nobody knowledgeable buys a VelociRaptor for I/O performance nowadays. They buy them for peace-of-mind; reliability.

    How about some estimated reliability graphs? At least of the previous model?
  • maz35 - Saturday, April 21, 2012 - link

    would a ssd and VelociRaptor be good for a gaming rig?
  • Tchamber - Saturday, April 21, 2012 - link

    Wouldn't be bad at all. I have two of the original 300gb Velociraptors in RAID0, and they're fast enough that I don't feel the need to upgrade to an SSD.
  • Jeff9329 - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - link

    I understand that SSDs are far faster, but it's seems to me they are still currently well over 3X as expensive. I was just looking at a 600GB Intel SSD but it was over $1,000USD.

    I would like to update one of my video editing machines from a 300GB Velociraptor boot drive (almost full) to a 600GB SSD boot drive, but the cost is awfully high.

    Im also not sure I can use my existing image on the SSD. Re-building the editing suite configuration on a new drive would take days. Can you move an SSD image to another SSD or do you get caught up in re-building the drive image with each new SSD drive?

    As for the 1 TB Velociraptor, it's a little large for a boot drive, but too small for a video editing data drive. However, the price is right, so using it for a boot drive is an idea.
  • astrojny - Friday, May 4, 2012 - link

    Wouldn't that make a lot of sense. For around $400 you should get a very speedy setup no?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now