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

We'll start out by looking at average data rate throughout our new heavy workload test:

Heavy Workload 2011 - Average Data Rate

Here it is. OCZ's Vector comes within 4% of Samsung's SSD 840 Pro and manages a 22% increase in performance compared to the Vertex 4. The breakdown shows Vector's strong write performance are really what push it over the edge. At the same time, OCZ has finally addressed whatever poor read performance issues plagued the Vertex 4 in our test - the Vector is a different beast here.

Heavy Workload 2011 - Average Read Speed

Heavy Workload 2011 - Average Write Speed

The next three charts just represent the same data, but in a different manner. Instead of looking at average data rate, we're looking at how long the disk was busy for during this entire test. Note that disk busy time excludes any and all idles, this is just how long the SSD was busy doing something:

Heavy Workload 2011 - Disk Busy Time

Heavy Workload 2011 - Disk Busy Time (Reads)

Heavy Workload 2011 - Disk Busy Time (Writes)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload
Comments Locked

151 Comments

View All Comments

  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    No NDA. All we are talking about is basic operation of the device. If you cannot explain that to everyone, then you are not worth much as a support person.

    I asked two questions, which you still have not answered:

    1) How do you explain the HD Tune results on HardOCP that I linked to?

    2) If storage mode and performance mode are the same speed, then why bother having two modes? Why call one "performance"?
  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 29, 2012 - link

    By the way, it seems like your explanation is, if you do this, and only this, and do not do that, and do this other thing, but do not do that other thing, then the performance of OCZ SSDs will be good.

    So I have another question for you. Why should anyone bother with all that rigamarole, when they can buy a Samsung 840 Pro for the same price, and you can use it however you want and get good performance?

    That is basically the original question from Death666Angel.
  • Death666Angel - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    Heh, didn't think I'd break off such a discussion. jwilliams is right about what my question would be. And just showing a graph that does not have the slow down in the 2nd 50% is not proof that the issue of a slow down in the 2nd 50% does not exist (as it has been shown by other sites and you cannot tell us why they saw that). I also don't care about the rearranging of the NAND that takes place between the 2 operation modes, that slow down is irrelevant to me. What I do care about is that there are 2 different modes, one operating when the disc is less than 50% full, the other operating over that threshold, and that I will only use the slower one because I won't buy a 512GB drive just to have 256GB useable space. And if they two modes have exactly the same speed, why have them at all? NDA information about something as vital as that is bullshit btw. :)
  • HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    ...these drives idle a lot more of the time than they work at full speed. A considerably higher idle is just bad all around.

    I don't think OCZ's part warrants the price they're asking. Its performance is less most of the time, its a power hog, its obviously hotter, it has the downsides of their 50% scheme, and it has OCZ's (Less Than) "Stellar" track record of firmware blitzkrieg to go along with it.

    I wonder, how many times will I lose all my data while constantly updating its firmware? 10? 20 times?
  • fwip - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    If the drive is idle 24/7 for an entire year, it will cost you less than a dollar, when compared to running no drive at all.

    "Power hog" is pretty relative.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    Be careful what you wish for. I been reading horror stories about the 840!
  • A5 - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    From where? I haven't seen any.
  • Brahmzy - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    That was beta firmware that Samsung has admitted had a problem. They said all retail drives shipped with the newer, fixed firmware. There have been ZERO reported failures of retail 840 Pro drives.
  • designerfx - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    I keep wanting to buy an SSD, but every time I wait the prices drop and the performance increases substantially.

    How long are we going to wait for 1-2TB SSD's? Bring them on already at reasonable prices ($250)!
  • mark53916 - Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - link

    Anand(tech) did lots of good testing, but seems to have left out copy performance.

    Copy performance can be less than one tenth of the read or write performance,
    even after taking into account that copying a file takes 2 times the interface bandwidth
    of moving the file one direction over a single directional interface. (Seeing that
    one drive is only able to copy less than 10MB/second, compared to 200MB for
    another drive when both each can both read or write faster than 400MB/s over a
    6Gb/s interface is much more important than seeing that one can read
    500MB/s and the other only at 400MB/s.)

    I use actual copy commands (for single files and trees) and the same
    on TrueCrypt volumes, as well as HD Tune Pro File Benchmark for these
    tests. (For HD Tune Pro the difference between 4 KB random single
    and multi is often the telling point.)

    I'd also like to see the performance of the OCZ Vector at 1/2 capacity.

    I'd also like to see how the OCZ Vector 512GB performs on the
    Oracle Swingbench benchmark. It would be interesting to see
    how wht Vector at 1/2 capacity compares to the Intel SSD DC S7300.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now