While synthetic workloads do a great job of testing the underlying technology and reporting easy to understand results, they aren’t always indicative of how the drive will be used by the end user. Workloads that simulate enterprise environments try to bridge that gap without being overly complex.
The database profile is 8K transfers, and 67% percent of operations are reads.
The fileserver profile is based on an 80% read/20% write mix. Its made up of blocksizes from 512 to 64K, each making up a different percentage of the access pattern.
The pattern is: 512 bytes=10%, 1k=5%,2k=5%, 4k=60%, 8k=2%, 16k=4%, 32k=4%, 64k=10%.
The webserver profile is similar to the fileserver profile, but has some additional 128K and 512K accesses thrown in for good measure. Additionally, the profile is 100% read.
Overall, the Adaptec/SMART solution blew through the server profiles as if they were synthetic 4KiB operations. The mixing and matching of transfer sizes and read/write operations had negligible affects on the results. The database profile results, specifically, showed little slowdown with the mixed workload. This aligns well with the results we observed in the SNIA testing.
One thing to note is that all profiles needed a very large queue depth (QD=192) to hit their maximum performance. We probably could have squeezed a few more IOPS out of the dual-adapter configuration, but we stopped at a QD of 768.