View Single Post
17 Jan 2011  
cluberti

Windows Server 2008 R2
 
 

That is interesting - although it does show it's limitations in Random Read performance and reads with sequential writes (which is what is the best indicator of actual performance in Windows), you score extremely high in latency (due to the low score), which is likely where you're getting the biggest bump. For example, on an admittedly older system running a 10K WD Raptor drive, I get a 5.9 - even though most of my scores are equal to, or better than, yours:
Code:
Windows System Assessment Tool
> Command Line 'winsat  disk -v'
> DWM running... leaving it on
> System processor power policy saved and set to 'max performance'
> Running: Feature Enumeration ''
> Gathering System Information
> Operating System                        : 6.1 Build-7600
> Processor                               : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad  CPU   Q9550  @ 2.83GHz
> TSC Frequency                           : 0
> Number of Processors                    : 1
> Number of Cores                         : 4
> Number of CPUs                          : 4
> Number of Cores per Processor           : 4
> Number of CPUs Per Core                 : 1
> Cores have logical CPUs                 : NO
> L1 Cache and line Size                  : 32768  64
> L2 Cache and line Size                  : 6291456  64
> Total physical mem available to the OS  : 7.99 GB (8,588,906,496 bytes)
> Adapter Description                     : NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
> Adapter Manufacturer                    : NVIDIA
> Adapter Driver Version                  : 8.17.12.5896
> Adapter Driver Date (yy/mm/dd)          : 2010\7\9
> Has DX9 or better                       : Yes
> Has Pixel shader 2.0 or better          : Yes
> Has LDDM Driver                         : Yes
> Dedicated (local) video memory          : 487.563MB
> System memory dedicated as video memory : 0MB
> System memory shared as video memory    : 3583.91MB
> Primary Monitor Size                    : 1920 X 1200  (2304000 total pixels)
> WinSAT is Official                       : Yes
> Run Time 00:00:00.00
> Running: Storage Assessment '-seq -read -n 1'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 256
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[0] - 76.683222 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[1] - 66.957107 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[2] - 77.994069 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[3] - 67.773430 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[4] - 66.896293 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[5] - 65.292959 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[6] - 63.444812 MB/s
Run[1] Type[0x01080001] Zone[7] - 54.540199 MB/s
> Run Time 00:00:06.94
> Running: Storage Assessment '-ran -read -n 1'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 1000
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384
Run[1] Type[0x01000002] Zone[0] - 2.101971 MB/s
> Run Time 00:00:07.88
> Running: Storage Assessment '-scen 2009 -drive C:'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 9000
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384

        Requesting a file of size 1073741824 located at physical offset 0x8a7f80200.

Expected number of IOs: 9000
Number of IOs in trace file:9882
> Run Time 00:01:09.14
> Running: Storage Assessment '-seq -write -drive C:'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 8
IO Count = 1000
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384

        Requesting a file of size 65536000 located at physical offset 0x100200.

Run[1] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 66.355565 MB/s
Run[2] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 63.338761 MB/s
Run[3] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 64.551867 MB/s
Run[4] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 69.996553 MB/s
Run[5] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 65.900110 MB/s
Run[6] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 68.246228 MB/s
Run[7] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 69.664267 MB/s
Run[8] Type[0x02000001] Zone[0] - 66.350880 MB/s
> Run Time 00:00:11.00
> Running: Storage Assessment '-flush -drive C: -seq'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 2501
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384

        Requesting a file of size 67108864 located at physical offset 0x8a7f80200.

Expected number of IOs: 2501
Number of IOs in trace file:2535
> Run Time 00:00:05.51
> Running: Storage Assessment '-flush -drive C: -ran'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 2501
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384

        Requesting a file of size 67108864 located at physical offset 0x8a7f80200.

Expected number of IOs: 2501
Number of IOs in trace file:3187
> Run Time 00:00:14.66
> Running: Storage Assessment '-hybrid -ran -read -n 1 -ransize 4096'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 1000
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 4096
NV Cache not present.
> Run Time 00:00:01.09
> Running: Storage Assessment '-hybrid -ran -read -n 1 -ransize 16384'
Mode Flags = 0x%08x
Disk Number = 1
Iterations = 1
IO Count = 1000
Sequential IO Size = 65536
Random IO Size = 16384
NV Cache not present.
> Run Time 00:00:01.14
> Disk  Sequential 64.0 Read                   74.28 MB/s          6.1
> Disk  Random 16.0 Read                       2.14 MB/s          4.3
> Responsiveness: Average IO Rate              3.23 ms/IO          6.2
> Responsiveness: Grouped IOs                  11.23 units          6.9
> Responsiveness: Long IOs                     13.12 units          7.1
> Responsiveness: Overall                      147.33 units          6.6
> Responsiveness: PenaltyFactor                0.0
> Disk  Sequential 64.0 Write                  101.15 MB/s          6.6
> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes     4.790 ms          6.1
> Latency: 95th Percentile                     17.716 ms          4.8
> Latency: Maximum                             393.415 ms          5.1
> Average Read Time with Random Writes         10.065 ms          4.5
> Total Run Time 00:01:59.67
> The System processor power policy was restored
The difference appears to be the Latency scores, which your disk does much better in than mine, and in the overall time to run the tests (meaning your disk is a slight bit faster at doing I/O work, which is expected as well with more cache and a faster system).
My System SpecsSystem Spec