topic Why random 100% write has less IOPS than sequential 100% write in Archive

Why random 100% write has less IOPS than sequential 100% write

idata — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:06:16 GMT

hi,

I am trying to measure the Intel X25-v SSD performance in random 100% write and sequential 100% write. I get less number of IOPS for random 100% writes when compared to sequential 100% write.

I browsed the net and from there it sounds like "SSD has a write cache and all the write requests are combined to form the size equal to SSD's erase block size.". Due to this random writes have less IOPS when compared to sequential IOPS. Is my understanding correct ?

Thanks you in advance.

Regards,

Ramu

Re: Why random 100% write has less IOPS than sequential 100% write

MBall5 — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:54:14 GMT

Hello, I would like to let you know that IOPS questions are considered benchmarking, and we do not support or provide information about benchmarking.

Re: Why random 100% write has less IOPS than sequential 100% write

idata — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:25:44 GMT

Hello, I would like to let you know that IOPS questions are considered benchmarking, and we do not support or provide information about benchmarking.

So what your saying in the Technical Specifications of this PDF for Intel® X25-V Value SATA Solid-State Drive from Intel saying:

"Random I/O Operations Per Second (IOPS)1

Random 4 KB Reads: up to 25,000 IOPS

Random 4 KB Writes: up to 2,500 IOPS"

http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/value/prodbrf/323039.pdf http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/value/prodbrf/323039.pdf

Thats not benchmarking?