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 TR200 reads very quickly. At both queue depths, it's right up there alongside the fastest SATA drives that money can buy. Alas, if only write performance was half as good. The TR200 is one of the pokiest writers we've seen in a while, at least in these IOMeter synthetics. It can't even match the speeds of the OCZ Trion 100, which was one of the most leisurely drives we tested in 2015.
Random read response times are middling on the chart, but in absolute terms they're just fine. Random write times are actually pretty good, beating the Trion 150 and even some high-class Samsung drives.
The TR200 is off to a bit of a rocky start with sequential writes, but there's plenty more testing to be done.