Comments on: Testing Intel, Samsung & SanDisk SATA SSD

By: Louis

Louis — Fri, 09 May 2014 07:10:15 +0000

Yes Ryan, I would love to hear from you 🙂

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 08 May 2014 20:46:10 +0000

My R720 with two H710P cards comes in tomorrow. Planning on running two arrays loaded with 16 x 1 TB Samsung SSDs… I’ll post some updates if anyone is interested.

By: Mike Yo

Mike Yo — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:31:11 +0000

Vadim, great information!
Yes, the Samsung had some issues with RAID before. Those issues were fixed and significantly boosted performance.
Which Firmware is/was your 840 Pro using during this test? Could you re-test using the latest firmware?

By: Louis

Louis — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:07:53 +0000

You should be aware that Samsung 840 behave properly behind LSI 9260 cards, but very badly behind LSI 9266 cards.
I’ve been checking this page over and over looking for a reason why my Samsungs were behaving that bad, but it turns out the problem is related to the raid adapter. Sorry if it’s a bit off-topic, but people might be interested and aware of this problem 🙂 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8644070&postcount=112

By: Sean Kelly

Sean Kelly — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:34:56 +0000

Vadim,

When I qualified a Sandisk (and OCZ) model at YouTube I was able to lock them up using a very aggressive, wide slow query bench and also with iozone. Maybe they have improved? We went with Intel X25’s and then 320’s and 520’s.

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:52:50 +0000

Erez,

I use R/ggplot2 for charts, but there is some learning curve to have it going,
so unless you familiar with it, doing charts in Excel is the fastest way.

I did not test Intel 520 480GB (but I test Intel DC S3500).

By: Erez Zarum

Erez Zarum — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:05:05 +0000

Oh well, parsing the sysbench report with sed to a csv format and then using Excel for graphs.
Have you ever tried benchmarking the Intel 520 Series 480GB? even though it’s not classified as Enterprise (lack of capacitor for example), it’s seems as the results are very surprising and stable.
I have run a small benchmark for one hour using the same sysbench command you used, the results of the 520 vs DC3500 are putting the 520 on a different scale.

By: Erez Zarum

Erez Zarum — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:44:17 +0000

Hey Vadim,
I might receive some new SSDs and i can run some tests on.
How do you produce those nice graphs?

Thanks!

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:15:15 +0000

@Enrico,

By instability I mean performance variations.
Looking at SanDisk architecture it uses 2 levels of cache – DDRAM and SLC (and data is stored on MLC).
So I think this is cache handling what contributes to performance variations.

By: Enrico

Enrico — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:25:47 +0000

>SanDisk is definitely attractive for absolute throughput, but significant instability is a concern

Hello , can you please elaborate on this? Are you referring to the performance variations or actual system instability?

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:34:42 +0000

@Wesley

All mentioned devices in this post are bought by Percona’s expenses and I have a quite limited budget, meaning that I can’t buy all available devices on market. So I do not think I am going to buy Corsair Neutron from my budget, but I will happily test if someone provides it.

By: Wesley Wu

Wesley Wu — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:55:38 +0000

Would u mind to test a Corsair Neutron drive? It seems the random write performance at QD32 is gorgeous.

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 03:52:47 +0000

Just to comment, I played with different settings on writethrough, no-readahead and Direct mode, and I see practically no effect on the results

By: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:02:19 +0000

I forgot to mention that the fio tests I did where synchronous so I’m not sure if the effect is as important for asynchronous workloads.

By: Peter Zaitsev

Peter Zaitsev — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:59:58 +0000

I think it is also very interesting to see how the drives perform with controller vs using SATA slot on the board. Are we getting much extra benefit from this write back cache or not ?

By: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:58:41 +0000

“cut though i/o” is a special mode for the virtual disk and in order to activate it you have to use writethrough and disable read-ahead (doesn’t matter that you are only testing writes). This is only interesting for SSD disks because apparently writing to the disk directly is faster than first writing to the cache and then to the disk.
I read about this in the context of Dell’s H700 Controller (which is just a rebranded LSI 92xx Controller). When I enabled this mode on our Intel 520 Raid-10 and 9270 controller setup random write IOPS (measured with FIO) increased by about 20%.
One interesting side effect of this is since you don’t use the cache at all you don’t need a battery to back it up which makes things cheaper. I’m not sure if this is a plus for every workload or just for random writes though and it might very well be that sequential performance might suffer but even then this is still interesting if you know that your load is mostly random write heavy.

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:31:45 +0000

I actually use writeback not writethrough, to use 512MB cache on RAID card . I will try in writethrough mode. I did not disable read-ahead, as I thought it is irrelevant for random-write benchmark.

By: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:23:47 +0000

Did you set the virtual disk settings to writethrough mode and disabled read-ahead (aka as “cut-through i/o”)? This could give you better number for random write IOPS.

By: Vadim Tkachenko

Vadim Tkachenko — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:51:24 +0000

MIchael,

Yes, I would like to see the results for Crucial 960GB

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:30:50 +0000

I’m currently waiting for Crucial M500 960GB. Would you be interested in its test results?