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 128-KB block size.
The X5's sequential read speeds are much faster than anything else we have to test with, but its write speeds are spectacularly unspectacular. This result clearly is not indicative of the drive's true performance, but is likely rather some of sort of issue between the drive and IOMeter. Samsung goes as far as to say in the drive's literature that "some performance benchmark tools may not work properly." Perhaps Alpine Ridge is to blame. Let's see if random response times are affected.
The X5's read and write response times are snappy as heck. But sequential writes are still a mystery, so let's turn to RoboBench to clear up the confusion.