Single page Print

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.

The TR200' read speeds are just fine with either one or eight threads. While the TR200 falls low in the rankings, its raw speeds are perfectly reasonable within the relatively tight spread of results for our SATA contenders.

Again, writes are the problem. The TR200 is far outclassed by the Trion 150, and even falls behind the Trion 100 in the eight-threaded test. We're edging dangerously close to hard-drive-class performance from this DRAM-less drive in our real-world workloads. Maybe the work set will be kinder to the TR200.

Then again, maybe not. The TR200 scrapes a victory over the Trion 150 in the 1T read test, but it lags behind in all the others.

RoboBench reaffirms what we learned via IOMeter. The TR200 is an acceptably fast reader, but it struggles when it comes to writing. The drive will get one last chance at performance redemption when we give it boot and load responsibilities on the next page.