IOPS vs MB/s SSD

Forums › Desktop computing › IOPS vs MB/s SSD

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#108987 10-Sep-2012 21:47

Hi there!

Comparing

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-2-5-Inch-Industrys-Warranty/dp/B007RARHSO/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

to:

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-Vertex-2-5-Inch-VTX3-25SAT3-240G/dp/B004QJM1HG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1347262951&sr=8-5&keywords=ssd+240gb

Read Speeds seem similar, write speeds seem better on the older model, IOPS is much better on the new generation drive. Whilst I sort of understand IOPS, I am not sure if faster R/W would be better for gaming and general windows usage therefore better to purchase 3rd Generation Drive?

Also OCZ seem to be getting a bit of a bad rap in some forums, and the Samsung 830's seem to be the drive of choice, however, my concern again, is the read/write speeds? I was going to buy 3 of these 240GB Drives and run them in a RAID 0 with a good 6GBPS raid controller.

eXDee

4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1070

Trusted

#684141 10-Sep-2012 21:56

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/352?vs=628

Look at heavy and light workloads for a custom benchmark they do to simulate real world usage.

Samsungs 830 is a nice drive. Personally i'd be looking at value for money per GB first, selecting sasy up to 5 drives, and then comparing them all against eachother to see what is the best value for money overall.

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 206

Trusted

Snowflake

#684173 10-Sep-2012 23:48

IOPS are generally more important on a device that's reading/writing to multiple files using random I/O. Very important on a server that is managing files for multiple users, less important on a home PC.

Sequential Reads and Sequential Writes (i.e. when you're copying big files around) don't really benefit from IOPS.

All SSD's outperform regular hard disks on IOPS, a regular hard disk has a seek time measured in milliseconds when the read head moves over the physical disk to find the next sector.

NOTE: if you put three SSDs in a RAID-0, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A BACKUP FOR WHEN IT FAILS (note, I said "when", not "if").

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#684175 10-Sep-2012 23:54

Regs: IOPS are generally more important on a device that's reading/writing to multiple files using random I/O. Very important on a server that is managing files for multiple users, less important on a home PC.

Sequential Reads and Sequential Writes (i.e. when you're copying big files around) don't really benefit from IOPS.

All SSD's outperform regular hard disks on IOPS, a regular hard disk has a seek time measured in milliseconds when the read head moves over the physical disk to find the next sector.

NOTE: if you put three SSDs in a RAID-0, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A BACKUP FOR WHEN IT FAILS (note, I said "when", not "if").

Thanks, that's useful to know. Based on that, would it be fair to say I should consider drives with higher R/W speeds for my purposes?

I actually have 4 x 120GB 3G SSD's in my computer right now, and I have been using RAID 0 since the first WD Raptor Drives came out, about 10 years now. Thankfully I have never had a failure, but I do keep very decent backups just in case!

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 206

Trusted

Snowflake

#684178 11-Sep-2012 00:03

networkn:
Regs: IOPS are generally more important on a device that's reading/writing to multiple files using random I/O. Very important on a server that is managing files for multiple users, less important on a home PC.

Sequential Reads and Sequential Writes (i.e. when you're copying big files around) don't really benefit from IOPS.

All SSD's outperform regular hard disks on IOPS, a regular hard disk has a seek time measured in milliseconds when the read head moves over the physical disk to find the next sector.

NOTE: if you put three SSDs in a RAID-0, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A BACKUP FOR WHEN IT FAILS (note, I said "when", not "if").

Thanks, that's useful to know. Based on that, would it be fair to say I should consider drives with higher R/W speeds for my purposes?

I actually have 4 x 120GB 3G SSD's in my computer right now, and I have been using RAID 0 since the first WD Raptor Drives came out, about 10 years now. Thankfully I have never had a failure, but I do keep very decent backups just in case!

I've had 3 OCZ SSDs and 2 Intel SSDs. I've had 2 OCZ failures and 1 Intel failure.

Depending on what you're putting those drives into, you may not be able to saturate the bus and get the full potential out of the read/write. I'd be inclined to go for price/reliability rather than raw performance. Pretty much any SSD gives you better performance than any regular hard drive, including the 10K rpm raptors...

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#684180 11-Sep-2012 00:14

I've had 3 OCZ SSDs and 2 Intel SSDs. I've had 2 OCZ failures and 1 Intel failure.

Depending on what you're putting those drives into, you may not be able to saturate the bus and get the full potential out of the read/write. I'd be inclined to go for price/reliability rather than raw performance. Pretty much any SSD gives you better performance than any regular hard drive, including the 10K rpm raptors...

Wow that is some serious misfortune you have found yourself! I haven't had a failed disk in a machine I own for at least 10 years, though I do turn them over about 2 yearly. I have an I7 with 12GB Memory, 2GB Graphics Card and a pretty decent controller. Right now with 4 SSD's I am in line with performance expectations but I don't have the capacity I would like hence I'll switch from 4x120GB to 3 x 256GB or similar.

What would you buy right now ?

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#684183 11-Sep-2012 00:19

I would go for IOPS over sequential read/write speeds but I'm gonna put it out there that both drives look pretty impressive and you wouldn't notice the difference between them in real world usage.. (but I don't have any real world data to back my claim up).

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#684209 11-Sep-2012 08:05

networkn: I actually have 4 x 120GB 3G SSD's in my computer right now, and I have been using RAID 0 since the first WD Raptor Drives came out, about 10 years now. Thankfully I have never had a failure, but I do keep very decent backups just in case!

Note that studies show an increased number of drives in any array also increases the chances of failure. Also RAID 0 seems to double that chance.

You might be doing backups, but for others just as a FYI running sync software is not the same as doing backup - they are actually replicating the deletes and overwrites, unless there's versioning in the sync software. This is the same for RAID 0.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#684233 11-Sep-2012 09:26

Take a look at cachecade which is a technology where a RAID controller uses SSDs as cache for regular SATA. I have cachecade running with 2x 128GB Samsung SSDs + 1GB DDR3 onboard and while I'm using a relatively slow RAID6 array made up of 8x 3TB drives I'm still getting near 7000IOPs in random read/write.

Speedtest 2019-10-14