Toshiba’s OCZ VX500 512GB SSD reviewed

Toshiba’s OCZ arm has been on a bit of a winning streak with its solid-state storage products in the last few years. In fact, pretty much every SSD—other than the Trion 100—that the company has put out since the acquisition has been a winner in our book. However, the company’s current lineup of drives consists of just three models: the RD400 for the luxury PCIe market, the TR150 for the bang-for-buck segment, and the VT180 that hangs out somewhere in between.

The beloved Arc 100 has been discontinued, and the venerable Vertex line hasn’t seen a new entry since the Vertex 460, which was released during the haze of bankruptcy fears and warranty uncertainties that arose while Toshiba was acquiring OCZ. The RD400 and TR150 are both fairly recent products, and each has earned our nod of approval for its respective market segment.

The VT180, on the other hand, is in a strange place. Known as the Vector 180 back when we reviewed it, the drive still features Toshiba’s A19 MLC flash and a Barefoot 3 controller. The 19-nm A19 NAND is old hat now, as the rest of the crew has moved on to 15-nm flash. And Barefoot is a name that has disappeared into the aether of Toshiba’s IP armory. Perhaps some Barefoot technology is still alive in Toshiba’s cryptically named “TC” controllers, but the company no longer discloses details about such things.

It comes as no surprise then, that the VT180 is being put out to pasture. To fill the void in the lineup that it leaves behind, Toshiba is introducing a new SATA drive—the OCZ VX500. Behold its shiny chassis.

Since we know how letters and numbers work, this “VX500” is clearly not meant to be direct substitute for the VT180. Instead, we should probably expect performance more in line with the Vertex series. The Vector line was created and marketed as a high-performance option, and Toshiba is perhaps hoarding the VT name for use on something more worthy. What sort of drive that will be remains to be seen, but our money’s on something powered by BiCS, Toshiba’s 3D competitor to Samsung’s V-NAND.

But that’s a story for another day. For now, let’s take a look at the VX500’s specifications and pricing.

Toshiba OCZ VX500
Capacity Max sequential (MB/s) Max random (IOps) Price
Read Write Read Write
128GB 550 485 62k 49k $63.99
256GB 550 510 90k 58k $92.79
512GB 550 515 92k 64k $152.52
1024GB 520 515 92k 65k $337.06

Note that the dollar amounts listed above are only “target launch pricing,” but we can’t imagine the actual launch price tags will deviate too much from what Toshiba has already made public. We’ve got one of the 512GB units to test, but before we talk about benchmarks, let’s rip it apart and see what we can glean from its innards.

Thermal pads. The VX500 is ostensibly powered by a host of thermal pads. Peel back a few of the pink squares and it becomes obvious that the NAND inside the VX500 is the same 15-nm planar Toshiba MLC used by the RD400. The controller appears to be named “TC358790XBG.” As we’ve come to expect, not much information can be found online about this controller, but we do know that this chip powered one of Toshiba’s non-OCZ drives, the Q Series Pro. In fact, if you take a look at that (now discontinued) drive, you might be struck by its resemblance to the VX500 here. The chassis and controller appear to be identical—the only apparent difference is that the Q was still running with A19 flash.

The simple conclusion is that after retiring the Q Series Pro, Toshiba decided to re-position its successor under the OCZ brand while transitioning the product to 15-nm. This explains how the company can introduce a “new” MLC drive at such relatively low prices right out of the gate—it already has a host of mature components, and it can economically assemble them into a cohesive product.

All versions of the VX500 come with a free copy of Acronis True Image and a 5-year advance-replacement warranty. Toshiba has been trumpeting its advanced warranty program for quite some time now, promising prompt and free cross-shipping if a drive fails. The company is clearly still trying hard to banish the specter of OCZ’s former reputation for poor reliability. The 512GB drive is rated to endure 296 terabytes written.

That’s it for our initial impressions and analysis. It’s time to break out IOMeter and see how the VX500 performs.

 

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 VX500’s sequential read speeds are strong, hovering in the 500-550 MBps range at both queue depths. That’s nipping at the heels of the 850 EVO 1TB, which has both a size and technology advantage (V-NAND) over the VX500. But before we can break out the champagne, the drive’s paltry sequential write speeds ruin our fun. Plenty of cheaper drives beat the VX500’s writes, including OCZ’s own Trion 150. The VX500 is straight-up MLC flash with a pseudo-SLC mode and no obvious DRAM cache, so perhaps these results were to be expected. Cost-cutting comes at a price.



The results are inverted on the random side. The VX500 is a bit slow to respond on random reads, but we’re still talking sub-millisecond response times here. We’ve often seen drives perform relatively poorly in this test before they go on to deliver solid real-world numbers, so we’ll refrain from angry tirades for the moment. Random write response times are perfectly acceptable, if unremarkable.

 

Sustained and scaling I/O rates

Our sustained IOMeter test hammers drives with 4KB random writes for 30 minutes straight. It uses a queue depth of 32, a setting that should result in higher speeds that saturate each drive’s overprovisioned area more quickly. This lengthy—and heavy—workload isn’t indicative of typical PC use, but it provides a sense of how the drives react when they’re pushed to the brink.

We’re reporting IOps rather than response times for these tests. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between SSDs.


To show the data in a slightly different light, we’ve graphed the peak random-write rate and the average, steady-state speed over the last minute of the test.

Well, that’s a particularly low peak. For context, the Vector 180’s steady-state speeds were almost half the VX500’s peak speeds. But we don’t really care so much about the actual magnitude of the peak, since the point of the test is to examine how drives perform once they’ve exhausted all their tricks. The VX500’s steady-state speeds land in the good company of the 850 EVO 250GB and BX100 500GB once its pseudo-SLC cache is saturated.

Our final IOMeter test examines performance scaling across a broad range of queue depths. We ramp all the way up to a queue depth of 128. Don’t expect AHCI-based drives to scale past 32, though—that’s the maximum depth of their native command queues.

For this test, we use a database access pattern comprising 66% reads and 33% writes, all of which are random. The test runs after 30 minutes of continuous random writes that put the drives in a simulated used state. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between the different drives. And note that the P3700 plot uses a much larger scale.


The VX500 flatlines around QD4, but that’s par for the course for your average consumer drive. After all, the lion’s share of the standard consumer workload happens at QD4 or lower. Let’s see how the VX500 looks against a selection of other drives.


In line with expectations: a good bit better than the Trion 150, but a far cry from the carefully binned and validated chips in the Vector 180. The VX500 scales similarly to Crucial’s MX200, its 500GB-class MLC contemporary.

IOMeter exposed some rather disappointing sequential write performance from the VX500, but maybe a real-world workload will better play to the drive’s strengths. Let’s find out with TR RoboBench.

 

TR RoboBench — Real-world transfers

RoboBench trades synthetic tests with random data for real-world transfers with a range of file types. Developed by our in-house coder, Bruno “morphine” Ferreira, this benchmark relies on the multi-threaded robocopy command build into Windows. We copy files to and from a wicked-fast RAM disk to measure read and write performance. We also cut the RAM disk out of the loop for a copy test that transfers the files to a different location on the SSD.

Robocopy uses eight threads by default, and we’ve also run it with a single thread. Our results are split between two file sets, whose vital statistics are detailed below. The compressibility percentage is based on the size of the file set after it’s been crunched by 7-Zip.

  Number of files Average file size Total size Compressibility
Media 459 21.4MB 9.58GB 0.8%
Work 84,652 48.0KB 3.87GB 59%

The media set is made up of large movie files, high-bitrate MP3s, and 18-megapixel RAW and JPG images. There are only a few hundred files in total, and the data set isn’t amenable to compression. The work set comprises loads of TR files, including documents, spreadsheets, and web-optimized images. It also includes a stack of programming-related files associated with our old Mozilla compiling test and the Visual Studio test on the next page. The average file size is measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes, and the files are mostly compressible.

RoboBench’s write and copy tests run after the drives have been put into a simulated used state with 30 minutes of 4KB random writes. The pre-conditioning process is scripted, as is the rest of the test, ensuring that drives have the same amount of time to recover.

Let’s take a look at the media set first. The buttons switch between read, write, and copy results.



Eat your heart out, IOMeter. The VX500 far surpasses the bar it set in our initial tests, matching or exceeding the Vector 180’s speeds across read, write, and copy tests. This is why we test with real workloads, folks. Synthetic testing doesn’t always tell the whole story. Against our media set, the VX500 puts up speeds on par with the blue-blooded 850 Pro 512GB.

There’s still the work set left to tackle. Let’s see whether the VX500 will defy IOMeter’s expectations again.



Here’s another reversal of fortune for Toshiba’s latest. Again, the VX500 matches the 850 Pro blow for blow. Heck, it’s really only the PCIe drives that are noticeably faster in the read and copy tests.

The VX500 sailed through RoboBench with impressive performance numbers that took us off guard. On our last page of tests, we’ll shift the drive into the position of primary storage and see how it fares.

 

Boot times

Until now, all of our tests have been conducted with the SSDs connected as secondary storage. This next batch uses them as system drives.

We’ll start with boot times measured two ways. The bare test depicts the time between hitting the power button and reaching the Windows desktop, while the loaded test adds the time needed to load four applications—Avidemux, LibreOffice, GIMP, and Visual Studio Express—automatically from the startup folder. Our old boot tests focused on the time required to load the OS, but these new ones cover the entire process, including drive initialization.

The VX500 makes starting up Windows look easy. It shaves a few seconds off of the Vector 180 960GB’s boot times, and that’s enough to satisfy us.

Load times

Next, we’ll tackle load times with two sets of tests. The first group focuses on the time required to load larger files in a collection of desktop applications. We open a 790MB 4K video in Avidemux, a 30MB spreadsheet in LibreOffice, and a 523MB image file in the GIMP. In the Visual Studio Express test, we open a 159MB project containing source code for the LLVM toolchain. Thanks to Rui Figueira for providing the project code.

It loads up our productivity suite without issue. For the benefit of the less productive reader, we’ll also see how quickly it loads up some Steam games.

The VX500 loads our trio of games as fast as anything else out there, including the PCIe competition. It even sets a new record for getting you into Middle-Earth, narrowly beating out the RD400. Don’t waste your money on fancy PCIe drives if gaming is your primary concern.

That’s it for our benchmarking suite, so read on for a breakdown of our test methods.

 

Test notes and methods

Here are the essential details for all the drives we tested:

  Interface Flash controller NAND
Adata Premier SP550 480GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2256 16-nm SK Hynix TLC
Adata XPG SX930 240GB SATA 6Gbps JMicron JMF670H 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial BX100 500GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2246EN 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial BX200 480GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2256 16-nm Micron TLC
Crucial MX200 500GB SATA 6Gbps Marvell 88SS9189 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial MX300 750GB SATA 6Gbps Marvell 88SS1074 32-layer Micron 3D TLC
Intel X25-M G2 160GB SATA 3Gbps Intel PC29AS21BA0 34-nm Intel MLC
Intel 335 Series 240GB SATA 6Gbps SandForce SF-2281 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel 730 Series 480GB SATA 6Gbps Intel PC29AS21CA0 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel 750 Series 1.2TB PCIe Gen3 x4 Intel CH29AE41AB0 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel DC P3700 800GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Intel CH29AE41AB0 20-nm Intel MLC
Mushkin Reactor 1TB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2246EN 16-nm Micron MLC
OCZ Arc 100 240GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
OCZ Trion 100 480GB SATA 6Gbps Toshiba TC58 A19-nm Toshiba TLC
OCZ Trion 150 480GB SATA 6Gbps Toshiba TC58 15-nm Toshiba TLC
OCZ Vector 180 240GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
OCZ Vector 180 960GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
Plextor M6e 256GB PCIe Gen2 x2 Marvell 88SS9183 19-nm Toshiba MLC
Samsung 850 EV0 250GB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MGX 32-layer Samsung TLC
Samsung 850 EV0 1TB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MEX 32-layer Samsung TLC
Samsung 850 Pro 500GB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MEX 32-layer Samsung MLC
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Samsung UBX 32-layer Samsung MLC
Samsung SM951 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Samsung S4LN058A01X01 16-nm Samsung MLC
Samsung XP941 256GB PCIe Gen2 x4 Samsung S4LN053X01 19-nm Samsung MLC
Toshiba OCZ RD400 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Toshiba TC58 15-nm Toshiba MLC
Toshiba OCZ VX500 512GB SATA 6Gbps Toshiba TC358790XBG 15-nm Toshiba MLC
Transcend SSD370 256GB SATA 6Gbps Transcend TS6500 Micron or SanDisk MLC
Transcend SSD370 1TB SATA 6Gbps Transcend TS6500 Micron or SanDisk MLC

All the SATA SSDs were connected to the motherboard’s Z97 chipset. The M6e was connected to the Z97 via the motherboard’s M.2 slot, which is how we’d expect most folks to run that drive. Since the XP941 and 950 Pro requires more lanes, they were connected to the CPU via a PCIe adapter card. The 750 Series and DC P3700 were hooked up to the CPU via the same full-sized PCIe slot.

We used the following system for testing:

Processor Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz
Motherboard Asus Z97-Pro
Firmware 2601
Platform hub Intel Z97
Platform drivers Chipset: 10.0.0.13

RST: 13.2.4.1000

Memory size 16GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Adata XPG V3 DDR3 at 1600 MT/s
Memory timings 11-11-11-28-1T
Audio Realtek ALC1150 with 6.0.1.7344 drivers
System drive Corsair Force LS 240GB with S8FM07.9 firmware
Storage Crucial BX100 500GB with MU01 firmware

Crucial BX200 480GB with MU01.4 firmware

Crucial MX200 500GB with MU01 firmware

Intel 335 Series 240GB with 335u firmware

Intel 730 Series 480GB with L2010400 firmware

Intel 750 Series 1.2GB with 8EV10171 firmware

Intel DC P3700 800GB with 8DV10043 firmware

Intel X25-M G2 160GB with 8820 firmware

Plextor M6e 256GB with 1.04 firmware

OCZ Trion 100 480GB with 11.2 firmware

OCZ Trion 150 480GB with 12.2 firmware

OCZ Vector 180 240GB with 1.0 firmware

OCZ Vector 180 960GB with 1.0 firmware

Samsung 850 EVO 250GB with EMT01B6Q firmware

Samsung 850 EVO 1TB with EMT01B6Q firmware

Samsung 850 Pro 500GB with EMXM01B6Q firmware

Samsung 950 Pro 512GB with 1B0QBXX7 firmware

Samsung XP941 256GB with UXM6501Q firmware

Transcend SSD370 256GB with O0918B firmware

Transcend SSD370 1TB with O0919A firmware

Power supply Corsair AX650 650W
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Operating system Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Thanks to Asus for providing the systems’ motherboards, to Intel for the CPUs, to Adata for the memory, to Fractal Design for the cases, and to Corsair for the system drives and PSUs. And thanks to the drive makers for supplying the rest of the SSDs.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

Some further notes on our test methods:

  • To ensure consistent and repeatable results, the SSDs were secure-erased before every component of our test suite. For the IOMeter database, RoboBench write, and RoboBench copy tests, the drives were put in a simulated used state that better exposes long-term performance characteristics. Those tests are all scripted, ensuring an even playing field that gives the drives the same amount of time to recover from the initial used state.

  • We run virtually all our tests three times and report the median of the results. Our sustained IOMeter test is run a second time to verify the results of the first test and additional times only if necessary. The sustained test runs for 30 minutes continuously, so it already samples performance over a long period.

  • Steps have been taken to ensure the CPU’s power-saving features don’t taint any of our results. All of the CPU’s low-power states have been disabled, effectively pegging the frequency at 3.5GHz. Transitioning between power states can affect the performance of storage benchmarks, especially when dealing with short burst transfers.

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at 1920×1080 at 60Hz. Most of the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Conclusions

The VX500’s excellent performance in real-world testing left us feeling pretty good about its prospects, but it’s time to find out exactly where it lands in our rankings. To compare each drive, we then take the geometric mean of a basket of results from our test suite. Only drives which have been through the entire current test suite on our current rig are represented.

Not too shabby. The VX500 512GB is on par with the late Crucial BX100, which lives on in our hearts for redefining what’s possible from a budget SSD. The VX500 can’t quite reach the heights of the MX200 and MX300, but the MX200 is a little more expensive, while the MX300 has the advantage of 3D NAND. The VX500 comes nowhere close the outgoing Vector 180, but we knew from the start that was likely to be the case. At least going by this performance measure, the VX500 isn’t the budget home-run that the Trion 150 was, nor is it the high-speed monster that the RD400 proved to be. Instead, it represents a practical compromise: pretty good performance at a pretty good price.

Let’s see how other drives compare price-wise. Since this drive hasn’t quite launched yet, we’re relying on Toshiba’s target price sheet to place the VX500. We’re trying something new this time around—use the buttons below to switch between views of all drives, just SATA drives, or just PCIe drives. The most compelling position in these scatter plots is toward the upper left corner, where the price per gigabyte is low and performance is high.


Everything left of the VX500 512GB is a TLC drive, with the lone exception of the Reactor 1TB. But frankly, it’s hard to compete on price with what is effectively the unofficial Deals of the Week drive. The Reactor, though, gives you a significantly stronger performance despite that lower price. If we ignore the Reactor for the moment, the VX500 looks to be in a pretty solid place. A little more cash gets you a little more performance in the MX200 500GB, while your best bet for a good deal less money is the somewhat slower Trion 150. If you can, our recommendation would be to scrounge up some more dough for that Reactor 1TB. It truly is a remarkable drive for the price.

If the step up to terabyte-class prices is too much for your wallet to handle, though, there’s little fault to be found with the VX500. It did quite well in our RoboBench and boot/load tests, and those tests cover the vast majority of consumer workloads. Unless you’ve got some rather eclectic I/O needs, the VX500’s somewhat lackluster IOMeter results will likely go unnoticed. The OCZ VX500 doesn’t offer world-beating performance, but we still think it’ll provide welcome competition to the MX200s and 850 EVOs of the world. Looking forward, we’re curious to see what Toshiba will do with the now-vacant OCZ VT line. Planar 15-nm MLC is all well and good, but these days, it takes an extra dimension to set our hearts racing.

Comments closed
    • richardjhonson
    • 3 years ago
    • robertsup
    • 3 years ago

    for me most important parts are mlc and almost 300 tbw for 512 model minimum for my needs in 5 year

    • emphy
    • 3 years ago

    At this point I am more interested in how well Toshiba is honoring the warranty and whether it’s actually needed and how well that compares to the competition.

    • green
    • 3 years ago

    … so when do finally replace for sata? (for numerous drives)
    we’ve been stuck around the 520-560MB read mark for about 5 years now
    [url<]https://techreport.com/review/22078/ocz-octane-512gb-solid-state-drive[/url<] starting to feel like the industry is waiting for everyone to go cloud storage or pushing us to use external drives over usb3/thunderbolt

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      While SSDs can saturate SATA easily on sequential transfers, only the fastest SSDs around can even begin to approach its limitations on random workloads.

      Surely SATA isn’t the best it could be, but it’s not as if it’s some huge bottleneck either. If you really need better sequential performance, most systems these days include at least an M.2 socket, if not U.2. And you can always throw an SSD or three into PCIe slots, which accomplishes the same thing.

    • HERETIC
    • 3 years ago

    PASS.
    Was-OOH-UGH-OOH-UGH-OOH-UGH.
    Nice to see MLC again,but would love to see what that controller is capable of
    with a decent chunk of ram(all of $3)
    Perhaps it could cure the abysmal QD1 reads (hello blue spinning thingy)

      • Waco
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t know how RAM would help QD1 random reads unless the controller is evicting LBA lookup data from its cache…

    • tay
    • 3 years ago

    Like the photographs. Computer hardware porn is always welcome.

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    they kept the ocz brand? dont they want to sell any of these?

    • Amien
    • 3 years ago

    I miss the Corsair VX series power supplies. Some of the best Seasonic units ever made… 🙁

      • HERETIC
      • 3 years ago

      Still available-They were rebadged S12’s
      Also available as Antec HCG and XFX plus others.
      Thro today your better of stepping up to G series……………..

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        Seasonic S12II is a pretty nice PSU for not a lot of money. I have the 620W version. $65 on Newegg [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16817151096<]right now[/url<]. Although the modular version is actually [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151095<]cheaper[/url<]

          • MOSFET
          • 3 years ago

          Seconded, derFunk. And EVGA is picking up the slack in the sub-Seasonic price territory (never thought I’d buy a $35 PSU, but EVGA has helped me change my mind.)

          • robertsup
          • 3 years ago

          you can think about evga g2 650 its made by super flower like p2 and t2 series its not much more expensive and have long warranty

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            If I was shopping today, I’d certainly give them a look.

    • Rza79
    • 3 years ago

    Maybe time to stop using IOMETER. Seems more and more SSDs struggle with this benchmark because it tests an unpartitioned drive.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Nice review Tony.

    I have to say that the old Toshiba Q-series are great drives, we have dozens of them in service. If I were buying a new SSD (I’m not) I’d be looking at the MX300. It’s position on the scatter plot is second only to the Mushkin 1TB and Mushkin is a US-only brand, from what I can tell, and therefore not an option for a lot of people.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      I have a 256GB Q Series Pro in one of our home PCs, and it’s been a great drive. It’s about 2.5 years old and not a hiccup.

        • ColeLT1
        • 3 years ago

        Same here. It replaced my samsung 830 that moved to server duty and has been great for my main rig for a while.

    • nico1982
    • 3 years ago

    Can you redo some of the test without thermal pads? I’m curious if they actually make a tangible difference in some scenarios.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]The VX500 is ostensibly powered by a host of thermal pads.[/quote<] Yes. I knew this day would come. THERMAL PAD FANBOY WARS START NOW!

    • fix
    • 3 years ago

    I wish Intel 540s was included among the compared SSDs.

      • tsk
      • 3 years ago

      That’s a terrible SSD.
      [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/10432/the-intel-ssd-540s-480gb-review[/url<]

    • meerkt
    • 3 years ago

    What can explain the large discrepancy between IOMeter and the file-based tests?

      • Waco
      • 3 years ago

      If I had to hazard a guess, filesystem caching creates nicer IOs to the drives when it does flush?

        • meerkt
        • 3 years ago

        How can caching improve sequential writes?

        IOMeter seq write: 200MB/s
        RoboCopy RAM->SSD with largish files: 520MB/s

          • Waco
          • 3 years ago

          Single thread writing reasonably sized IOs versus multiple threads writing potentially very large IOs.

            • meerkt
            • 3 years ago

            But IOMeter’s seq write is practically the same in both QD 1 and 4. Also RoboCopy’s the same with 1 or 8 threads.

            • Waco
            • 3 years ago

            Hell, I don’t know. There’s a measured difference, and the only last thing I have is that the IOs are much larger during a flush…or they’re more spread out over LBAs?

            There’s a repeatable result here, so there has to be something.

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 3 years ago

      I think the missing DRAM buffer hurts it in some areas.

      • weaktoss
      • 3 years ago

      I can’t say definitively, but the IOMeter tests intentionally don’t give drives any time to recover from simulated used-state conditioning before slamming them with I/O. RoboBench, on the other hand, includes some automated waits and reboots, during which the VX500 may have had sufficient time to write out and flush its pseudo-SLC cache.

        • meerkt
        • 3 years ago

        Good point. I guess the key is that the big Robocopy test is less than 10GB. So presumably 520MBps sequential in SLC mode, and 200MBps in steady state.

          • Waco
          • 3 years ago

          That’s probably key for this. I’ve been misreading those charts for years, thinking 1T and 8T were the total workload size in TB. My brain is stupid.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This