Page 7 : IO Meter Sequential Access Performance

IO Meter (Sequential Access)

We compared the 10TB WD Red (WD100EFAX) NAS drive to the 6TB WD Red. For more performance comparisons, please take a look at The Hard Disk Drive Performance Comparison Guide.

 

Sequential Throughput

Test	WD Red (10 TB)	WD Red (6 TB)	Difference
512 KB Read	215.25 MB/s	172.71 MB/s	+ 24.6%
512 KB Write	215.45 MB/s	173.09 MB/s	+ 24.5%
4 KB Read	84.70 MB/s	51.64 MB/s	+ 64.0%
4 KB Write	71.53 MB/s	50.09 MB/s	+ 42.8%

This is the most important test for the NAS drives because it shows their ability to read and write files sequentially. The large sequential transfer performance is particularly important since many NAS system deal with large files (larger than 512 KB in this context).

Without a doubt, the 10TB WD Red (WD100EFAX) is much faster than the 6TB WD Red in all aspects. The biggest boost was in small sequential reads.

 

Sequential Access Time

Test	WD Red (10 TB)	WD Red (6 TB)	Difference
512 KB Read	2.43 ms	3.03 ms	– 19.8%
512 KB Write	2.43 ms	3.03 ms	– 19.7%
4 KB Read	0.05 ms	0.08 ms	– 39.2%
4 KB Write	0.06 ms	0.08 ms	– 30.0%

[adrotate group=”1″]

 

Sequential CPU Utilisation

Test	WD Red (10 TB)	WD Red (6 TB)	Difference
512 KB Read	29.84 %	0.96 %	+ 3008%
512 KB Write	29.49 %	1.14 %	+ 2487%
4 KB Read	35.77 %	8.52 %	+ 319.8%
4 KB Write	35.17 %	9.15 %	+ 284.4%

Even in sequential accesses, the 10TB WD Red (WD100EFAX) took up an excessive amount of CPU utilisation. Again, this is not a problem for NAS systems, but will be an issue for those who choose to use this drive in their desktop systems.

Next Page > IOPS Scaling (Random) Performance

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!