Intel SSD Pro 2500 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on July 30, 2014 5:00 AM ESTPerformance 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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Impulses - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
I don't think they ever intended to be a major player in the consumer side, low margins and all that, they jumped in to kickstart the market while other OEM couldn't get out of their own way.FunBunny2 - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Given that Enterprise SSD was the province of small vendors and RAM SSDs for more than a decade before NAND versions began to be built, Intel really has never had an Enterprise presence in SSD. That they make half-hearted attempts, using third-party controllers no less, means they won't be taken seriously. IBM could have bought their SSD shop, but took Texas Memory instead. There's a lesson in that.Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Saying that Intel has no enterprise SSD presence is just nuts. Last year Intel was the #1 enterprise SSD vendor in terms of revenue.http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/06/13/gartner_ww_ent_ss...
http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/06/13/gartner_ssa_revs_...
IBM's SSA revenue is not even close, let alone the fact that the array market is not the same thing as the enterprise SSD market. Many SSA vendors use drives from the enterprise SSD vendors.
FunBunny2 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Just because Intel/whoever shifts lots o SATA drek to ABC Corp. to fill up desktops and the occasional windoze/*nix document server doesn't make Intel/whoever an Enterprise Storage player.Enterprise Storage means:
fibre channel
serial attached SCSI
InfiniBand
"The first terabyte class FC SSD systems started shipping in February 2003."
Here: http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-fc.html
You should spend some quality time with Zolt. You'll learn a lot about SSD.
kaix2 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
what a funny bunny. intel focuses more on enterprise ssd and is the #1 vendor in that space. the 3rd part controllers are for low margin consumer drives.mikk - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Crucial and Samsung are much more interesting for client SSD users nowadays, Intel is more or less dead in this space.jeffrey - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Crucial more exciting than SanDisk in client SSD?? The value of the Extreme II and performance of the Extreme Pro are more interesting to me than anything Crucial has (price).hojnikb - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Have you looked at the Crucial prices recently ?They prety much destroy competition with price/GB.
emn13 - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Given the overall similarity of modern SSD performance in client workloads, price & reliability are the most important aspects (to me). It's not like even a fairly heavy workload will result in differences even a power user is likely to notice.mapesdhs - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Wow, are you really saying you'd opt for an MX100 instead of the Sandisk X210? Because
that would be a really weird decision (they're almost the same price here). The X210 is by
far the better product yet is only fractionally more.
Ian.