Single page Print

IOMeter — Sequential and random performance
IOMeter fuels much of our latest storage test suite, including our sequential and random I/O tests. These tests are run across the full capacity of the drive at two queue depths. The QD1 tests simulate a single thread, while the QD4 results emulate a more demanding desktop workload. For perspective, 87% of the requests in our old DriveBench 2.0 trace of real-world desktop activity have a queue depth of four or less. Clicking the buttons below the graphs switches between results charted at the different queue depths.

Our sequential tests use a relatively large 128KB block size.

Wow. Perhaps it's because the Trion 100 set the bar rather low, but the Trion 150 come out of the gate looking quite good. Somehow, it sets a record as the highest-ranked SATA drive in our sequential read test at QD1. Eat your heart out, MLC.

Well, not quite. The Trion 150's sequential write performance isn't as stellar as its reads, but this drive is still vastly better than the Trion 100. The Trion 150's planar NAND handicap doesn't stop it from edging out the V-NAND-equipped 850 EVO 250GB, either. To be fair, that's not an entirely apples-to-apples comparison, thanks to the capacity and cost differences between these drives. It's still an impressive result, though. 

Next, we'll turn our attention to performance with 4KB random I/O. The tests below are based on the median of three consecutive three-minute runs. SSDs typically deliver consistent sequential and random read performance over that period, but random write speeds worsen as the drive's overprovisioned area is consumed by incoming writes. We've reported average response times rather than raw throughput, which we think makes sense in the context of system responsiveness.

It just couldn't all be good news, could it? The Trion 100's read response times were already at the bottom of the rankings, but the Trion 150 manages to turn in a slightly worse performance yet. To put things in perspective, though, these are all sub-millisecond response times, so it's not such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Random write response times are smack in the middle of the pack, so no complaints there.

The Trion 150's improvements over the Trion 100 are encouraging thus far. We're cautiously optimistic that the newer drive will continue to come out ahead in our other tests. Let's see if that's the case.