Drive Performance

UPDATE: more data from other arrays & configurations
In an earlier post I said I was building a table of performance data from my experimentation with my new iomega ix2-200 as well as other drive configurations for comparison. In addition to the table that follows, I'm also including a spreadsheet with the results:

The Corners	1 block seq read (IOPS)	4K random read (IOPS)	4K random write (IOPS)	512K seq write MB/s	512K seq read MB/s	Notes
local SSD RAID0	10400	2690	3391	63.9	350.6	2 x Kingston "SSD Now V-series" SNV425
ix2 SSD CIFS	3376	891	308	25.7	40.4	2 x Kingston "SSD Now V-series" SNV425
ix2 SSD iSCSI	4032	664	313	29.4	38.5	2 x Kingston "SSD Now V-series" SNV425
local 7200 RPM SATA RAID1	7242	167	357	94.3	98.1	2 x Western Digital WD1001FALS
ix4 7200RPM CIFS**	2283	133	138	32.5	39.4	4 x Hitachi H3D200-series; **jumbo frames enabled
ix2 7200RPM CIFS	2362	125	98	9.81	9.2	2 x Hitachi H3D200-series
ix2 7200RPM iSCSI	2425	123	104	9.35	9.64	2 x Hitachi H3D200-series
ix4 7200RPM iSCSI**	4687	117	122	37.4	40.8	4 x Hitachi H3D200-series; **jumbo frames enabled
ix4a stock CIFS	2705	112	113	24	27.8	4 x Seagate ST32000542AS
ix4 stock iSCSI	1768	109	96	34.5	41.7	4 x Seagate ST31000520AS
ix4a stock iSCSI*	408	107	89	24.2	27.2	4 x Seagate ST32000542AS; *3 switch "hops" with no storage optimization introduce additional latency
ix2 stock CIFS	2300	107	85	9.85	9.35	2 x Seagate ST31000542AS
ix2 stock iSCSI	2265	102	84	9.32	9.66	2 x Seagate ST31000542AS
ix4 stock CIFS	4407	81	81	32.1	37	4 x Seagate ST31000520AS
DROBO PRO (iSCSI)	1557	71	68	33.1	40.5	6 x Seagate ST31500341AS + 2 x Western Digital WD1001FALS; jumbo frames
DROBO USB	790	63	50	11.2	15.8	2 x Seagate ST31000333AS + 2 x Western Digital WD3200JD
DS2413+ 7200RPM RAID1/0 iSCSI	12173	182	194	63.53	17.36	2 x Hitachi HDS722020ALA330 + 6 x HDS723020BLA642
DS2413+ 7200RPM RAID1/0 NFS						2 x Hitachi HDS722020ALA330 + 6 x HDS723020BLA642
DS2413+ SSD RAID5 iSCSI	19238	1187	434	69.79	123.97	4 x Crucial M4

PX6-300			1 block seq read (IOPS)	4K random read (IOPS)	4K random write (IOPS)	512K seq write MB/s	512K seq read MB/s
Protocol	RAID	Disks
iSCSI	none	1	16364	508	225	117.15	101.11
	RAID1	2	17440	717	300	116.19	116.91
	RAID1/0	4	17205	2210	629	115.27	107.75
		6	17899	936	925	43.75	151.94
	RAID5	3	17458	793	342	112.29	116.34
		4	18133	776	498	45.49	149.27
		5	17256	1501	400	115.15	116.12
		6	18022	1941	1065	52.64	149.1
	RAID0	2	17498	1373	740	116.44	116.22
		3	18191	1463	1382	50.01	151.83
		4	18132	771	767	52.41	151.05
		5	17692	897	837	56.01	114.35
		6	18010	1078	1014	50.87	151.47
	RAID6	6	17173	2563	870	114.06	116.37
Protocol	RAID	Disks	1 block seq read (IOPS)	4K random read (IOPS)	4K random write (IOPS)	512K seq write MB/s	512K seq read MB/s
NFS	none	1	16146	403	151	62.39	115.03
	RAID1	2	15998	625	138	63.82	96.83
	RAID1/0	4	15924	874	157	65.52	115.45
		6	16161	4371	754	65.87	229.52
	RAID5	3	16062	646	137	63.2	115.15
		4	16173	3103	612	65.19	114.76
		5	15718	1013	162	59.26	116.1
		6	16161	1081	201	63.85	114.63
	RAID0	2	15920	614	183	66.19	114.85
		3	15823	757	244	64.98	114.6
		4	16258	3769	1043	66.17	114.64
		5	16083	4228	1054	66.06	114.91
		6	16226	4793	1105	65.54	115.27
	RAID6	6	15915	1069	157	64.33	114.94

About the data

After looking around the Internet for tools that can be used to benchmark drive performance, I settled on the venerable IOmeter. Anyone who has used it, however, knows that there is an almost infinite set of possibilities for configuring it for data collection. In originally researching storage benchmarks, I came across several posts that suggest IOmeter along with various sets of test parameters to run against your storage. Because I'm a big fan of VMware, and Chad Sakac of EMC is one of the respected names in the VMware ecosystem, I found his blog post to be a nice start when looking for IOmeter test parameters. His set is a good one, but requires some manual setup to get things going. Also in my research, I came across a company called Enterprise Strategy Group which not only does validation and research for hire, they've published their custom IOmeter workloads in an IOmeter "icf"configuration file. The data published above was collected using their workload against a 5GB iobw.tst buffer. While the table above represents "the corners" for the storage systems tested, I also captured the entire result set from the IOmeter runs and have published the spreadsheet for additional data if anyone is interested.

px6-300 Data Collection

The data in the px6-300 tables represents a bit of a shift in the methodology: the original data sets were collected using the Windows version of iometer, while the px6-300 data was collected using the VMware Labs ioAnalyzer 1.5 "Fling". Because it uses the virtual appliance, a little disclosure is due: the test unit is connected by a pair of LACP-active/active 1Gb/s links to a Cisco SG-300 switch. In turn, an ESXi 5.1 host is connected to the switch via 4x1Gb/s links, each of which has a vmkernel port bound to it. The stock ioAnalyzer's test disk (SCSI0:1) has been increased in size to 2GB and is using an eager-zeroed thick VMDK (for iSCSI). The test unit has all unnecessary protocols disabled and is on a storage VLAN shared by other storage systems in my lab network. The unit is otherwise idle of any workloads (including the mdadm synchronization that takes place when configuring different RAID levels for disks, a very time-consuming process); there may be other workloads on the ESXi host, but DRS is enabled for the host's cluster, and if CPU availability were ever an issue in an I/O test (it isn't), other workloads would be migrated away from the host to provide additional resource.

The Takeaway

As expected, the SSD-based systems were by-far the best-performing on a single-spindle basis. However, as one might expect, an aggregate of spindles can provide synergy that meets or exceeds the capability of SSD, and locally-attached storage can also make up the difference in I/O performance. The trade-off, of course, is the cost (both up-front and long-term) versus footprint.