Largest cyber attack ever? Well, this part of the story was true, the attack was the largest attack ever, peaking at Gbps.
Worst-case multitasking, IO consistency Peak IO, basic GC routines SSDs have grown in their performance abilities over the years, so we wanted a new test that could really push high queue depths at times.
The average queue depth is still realistic for a client workload, but the Destroyer has some very demanding peaks. When we first introduced the Heavy test, some drives would take multiple hours to complete it; today most high performance SSDs can finish the test in under 90 minutes.
So far the fastest we've seen it go is 10 hours. Most high performance SSDs we've tested seem to need around 12—13 hours per run, with mainstream drives taking closer to 24 hours.
Back in we just needed something that had a ton of writes so we could start separating the good from the bad. Now that the drives have matured, we felt a test that was a bit more balanced would be a better idea. Despite the balance recalibration, there is just a ton of data moving around in this test.
Ultimately the sheer volume of data here and the fact that there's a good amount of random IO courtesy of all of the multitasking e. As the days of begging for better random IO performance and basic GC intelligence are over, we wanted a test that would give us a bit more of what we're interested in these days.
As Anand mentioned in the S review, having good worst-case IO performance and consistency matters just as much to client users as it does to enterprise users.
We are reporting two primary metrics with the Destroyer: The former gives you an idea of the throughput of the drive during the time that it was running the Destroyer workload.
This can be a very good indication of overall performance. What average data rate doesn't do a good job of is taking into account response time of very bursty read: By reporting average service time we heavily weigh latency for queued IOs. You'll note that this is a metric we've been reporting in our enterprise benchmarks for a while now.
With the client tests maturing, the time was right for a little convergence. It appears that something was off in the first run as the 1TB scored I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the score above.
Unfortunately I didn't have time to rerun the test because The Destroyer takes roughly 12 hours to run and another eight or so hours to be analyzed.
I'll rerun the test on the 1TB sample once I get back and will update this based on its output. Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see.
I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. We use both standard pseudo randomly generated data for each write as well as fully random data to show you both the maximum and minimum performance offered by SandForce based drives in these tests.
The average performance of SF drives will likely be somewhere in between the two values for each drive you see in the graphs. There is some slight variation of course but nothing that stands out.
It's possible that the die NAND has some effect on performance, which would explain the difference, but we're still dealing with rather small differences. The result is a pretty big reduction in sequential write speed on SandForce based controllers.Each Manufacturer: HP. Each.
HP StorageWorks P G2 SANs, representing a virtualized pool of storage resources, deliver enterprise SAN functionality that enhances virtual enviro. Intel and SiliconSystems (acquired by Western Digital in ) used the term write amplification in their papers and publications as early as Write amplification is typically measured by the ratio of writes committed to the flash memory to the writes coming from the host system.
Bigger spare area allows the SSD to decrease Write Amplification Factor. WAF is the ration of amount of data writes to NAND to the amount of data host writes to SSD. Target to 1 if the SSD controller doesn’t have the compression.
Intel Graphics Driver in Apple OS X before allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted app. CVE Intel Graphics Driver in Apple OS X before allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context or cause a denial of service.
The Intel Pentium N processor and GMA HD graphics card give you superb images and amazing performance. Tap, touch, and swipe your way through apps with the touchscreen or stick with the classics with a chicklet-style keyboard and touch panel.
Jan 14, · All Intel® SSDs have TRIM and Garbage Collection as standard features. The Intel® SSD DC S and other data center series have additional space so the data can be moved and the impact of not having TRIM is down to a minimum.
Sep 26, · The results are almost perfectly in line with Intel's specification. The GB S levels out at just over 35, IOPs, while the GB S settles in at around 15, IOPs. Examining the average latency throughout the hour 4K write provides a good look at the capabilities of each drive's garbage collection algorithms. / (root) OS system –Intel SSD for Data Center Family S –GB Capacity /dev/nvme0n1 Intel SSD for Data Center Family P –TB Capacity, x4 PCIe AIC /dev/nvme1n1 Intel SSD for Data Center Family P - TB Capacity, x4 PCIe AIC. Jan 24, · Both the Pro and the S are great drives, and you summarized it well: The Samsung wins for performance, but the Intel has power fail protection. In the configuration you are looking at, the highly over provisioned Samsung will also .