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.
The MX300's sequential read speeds are great, handily beating the MX200's QD1 speeds and coming close to matching its QD4 speeds. It doesn't fare quite as well on the sequential write side—both the BX100 and MX200 write significantly faster. The MX300 will have to take solace in the fact that it slaughters the BX200's writes. But then again, even I can write faster than the BX200 if I'm equipped with a decent pen.
The MX300's random results are the opposite of its sequential numbers. The drive posts read response times that are slower than most, but its write response times are excellent. That's Dynamic Write Acceleration at its finest. But DWA isn't a cure-all, so let's see what happens when it isn't allowed to work its magic.