IOMeter
Now it's time to look at IOMeter results. We split the results into four tables - one group for 80 GB drives and a second group for the 160 GB drives. In each group, you'll find both sequential and random results for both read and write operations. In case you're wondering, these tests results are taken with test patterns using 32 KB transfer request size. Since we're using IOMeter as a synthetic test, data patterns are set to 100 percent (100% Sequential Read, 100% Sequential Write, 100% Random Read and 100% Random Write).| Sequential | |||
| Deskstar 80 GB single | Barracuda 80 GB single | Caviar 80 GB single | |
| Read (Iops) | 1829.2 | 2322.56 | 2350.78 |
| Read (Mbs) | 57.17 | 72.58 | 73.46 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 5.2 | 8.87 | 13.59 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.76 | 2.54 | 2.86 |
| Write (Iops) | 1828.97 | 2323.1 | 2290.5 |
| Write (Mbs) | 57.16 | 72.59 | 71.59 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.44 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 17.06 | 9.63 | 15.43 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 1.65 | 2.86 | 2.67 |
| Deskstar 80 GB array | Barracuda 80 GB array | Caviar 80 GB array | |
| Read (Iops) | 3310.46 | 2879.57 | 3358.02 |
| Read (Mbs) | 103.45 | 89.96 | 104.94 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.3 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 15.03 | 15.69 | 10.33 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 3.61 | 6.05 | 6.72 |
| Write (Iops) | 3178.24 | 2478.98 | 2680.93 |
| Write (Mbs) | 99.32 | 77.47 | 83.78 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 0.31 | 0.4 | 0.37 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 0.93 | 5.11 | 17.77 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 3.14 | 3.93 | 4 |
IOMeter results from the 80 GB drives seem to confirm our HD Tach results - the Deskstar is slower on read and write than both the Barracuda and the Caviar. At least, when it's used in a single drive configuration. Put two Deskstars together into a RAID 0 stripe and you'll get performance close to two Caviars in a similar RAID 0 stripe. Even better sometimes, just look at the strong write performance in RAID 0 with two Deskstars. This is very different to what we're seeing with HD Tach. According to HD Tach results, the Barracuda should be leaving the other two drives in the dust in this test. Let's look at the Random test results.
| Random | |||
| Deskstar 80 GB single | Barracuda 80 GB single | Caviar 80 GB single | |
| Read (Iops) | 72.34 | 56.1 | 69.09 |
| Read (Mbs) | 2.26 | 1.75 | 2.16 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 13.82 | 17.77 | 14.47 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 24.96 | 37.33 | 27.48 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.03 | 0.31 | 0.19 |
| Write (Iops) | 104.95 | 89.76 | 100.36 |
| Write (Mbs) | 3.28 | 2.63 | 3.14 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 9.53 | 11.14 | 9.96 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 643.81 | 31.82 | 32.35 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.78 |
| Deskstar 80 GB array | Barracuda 80 GB array | Caviar 80 GB array | |
| Read (Iops) | 71.07 | 54.42 | 65.11 |
| Read (Mbs) | 2.22 | 1.66 | 2.04 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 14 | 18.37 | 15.36 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 24.48 | 34.76 | 27.75 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.11 | 3.59 | 3.7 |
| Write (Iops) | 145.92 | 137.12 | 131.12 |
| Write (Mbs) | 4.55 | 4.26 | 4.1 |
| Average Access Time (ms) | 6.8 | 7.33 | 7.63 |
| Maximum Access Time (ms) | 713.98 | 50 | 43.95 |
| CPU Utilization (%) | 0.71 | 11.21 | 18.12 |
According to this, the 80 GB Deskstar offer better results in this 100 % synthetic random test both when used in a single drive setup or RAID 0. The 80 GB Caviar comes in at a very close second place and the Barracuda follows at third place. One thing that's really puzzling is CPU utilization on random write tests. Both the Barracuda and Caviar post numbers above 10 percent while the Deskstar practically don't put any burden on the processor. So according to these test results, we're slightly better offf with the Deskstar than the Caviar.
[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]