Source: THG – Keywords: hyperdrive4, ssd
Categories: Hardware
Storage Benchmark Results
We benchmarked the HyperDrive 4 as an individual hard drive using eight 2 GB DDR333 ECC DIMMs, and we also checked the performance on an Areca ARC1280ML RAID controller, both using only one HyperDrive 4, and using two of them in a RAID 0 array.
Data Transfer Diagrams
The HyperDrive 4 sustains a 114 MB/s read transfer rate and 82 MB/s write transfer rate across the entire 16 GB of storage. Both results are excellent; only the read results can be beaten, and only by the latest 15,000 RPM SAS drives.
Running the HyperDrive 4 on the RAID controller with cache memory results in the same basic read and read throughput, but the controller’s cache memory is extremely helpful for write operations: as you can see, the sequential throughput for writes skyrockets to 450 MB/s for the first 500 MB of data, because this is what the controller can store inside its DDR2 cache memory.
Running two HyperDrive 4s in RAID 0 results in almost twice the sequential throughput, for both reads and writes. The caching advantage of our Areca ARC1280ML RAID controller is also still there.
- Previous page Solid State Drive Comparison Table
- Next page Access Time
- The Terabyte Battle Continues: Enter Seagate
- 6 Bare Metal Backup and Recovery Options
- Parallel Processing, Part 2: RAM and HDD
- WD Caviar GP: The Green 1 TB Drive
- SAS Hard Drives: 15,000 vs. 10,000 RPM
- Flash-Based Hard Drives Are Here
- Unified Serial RAID Controllers for PCI Express
- RAID Scaling Charts, Part 2
- Enthusiast 2.5-inch HDDs: Speed or Capacity?
- Should You Care About Hybrid Hard Drives?
But... I have been monitoring the progress of the Hyperdrives (or not!!) over the past few years... The Hyperdrive IV (long awaited) has been around for months... So why have THG taken so long to produce this article???
We get subjected to latest GPU wars (which never show MINIMUM framerates) or Intel CPU... Thats great when they introduce something new (Netburst->Centrino->Core) but otherwise is pretty dull... Time to put the innovation back in THG!!
As for the Hyperdrive IV its a crock of **** because HyperOS Systems _still_ have not sorted out a SATA-300 link for it!! Mind you at least it is no longer vapour-ware (like it was for 2-3 years of development post product announcment)... An SDRAM base Hyperdrive V (?) should saturate a 3Gbit link and only then will you totally kick the butt of any other drive on the planet!! The benchmarks results would change radically then!!
Ah looking forward to 2008!! Donations to the "Bob Build a Server Fund" gratefully received :-)
Bob
http://www.fusionio.com/
They have FAR more bang for your buck.
It will be expensive in the beginning (everything is in IT). Once this filters through to the normal user it will DESTROY anything that SATAII can throw at it. 100,000 io/s, the benchmarks speak for themselves.
doa_cp:
OK the price may be good but the life span isn't. The Hyperdrive will last a lot longer (with decent ECC RAM). Also I would rather have a generic SATA-2 interface than suffer the driver headaches of a PCIe interface. Could you ever install an OS on one - I doubt it!! (Especially Windows of course!!)
I am interested in the performance for RAID-0 cheap CF cards with SATA adapters hanging off a good RAID card with 256Mb+ of cache ram. 8x CF 8Gb cards could have interesting performance numbers!!
Also the individual CF cards could be replaced as they wear out and the investment in CF IDE-SATA adapters and Hardware RAID card amortilised over time... Still waiting, waiting, waiting for THG to pull their collective fingers out and do a decent article on this subject (and not the pansy assed one that came out this year).
Bob
what do you mean the life span is not very long? Its more than a hard drive, and just as good as a CF card.
I would think that drier support would be extremely good, it is aimed at the server market, but if they want windows sales then 2003 and XP are (almost) identical so drivers would not be a problem.
You are right about OS installation though, that is until mainbaords accept PCIe as a boot device (could wait a LONG time for that).
I don't know that I'd want to install an OS on it though, especially windows (think pagefiles!!).
I reckon that it will kick ass as a database/webserver storage solution, maybe just a bridge too far for "normal" pc users.
I guess just losing storage slowely ain't so bad (through wear leveling). I got a new Seagate HD in the Summer and last month one of the heads started aqua-planning on the harddisk. So you're right when you think of HD lifespans...
However I was pitting your PCIe drive against a bank of RAID-0 CF cards or a Hyperdrive V (?? - SATA-1 interface is a waste of money) Now the later may be expensive but it should last a longtime (SDRAM lifetime)!!
Bob