Synthetic performanceMesured with h2benchw, SSD cache speed is really astonishing. At 0.12 ms, the X25-M V2 gets a very good scrore, the best of MLCs along with the Vertexes.
We continue with the speed, still with the help of h2benchw. In contrast to other benchmarking software such as HDTune or HDTach, h2benchw carries out a true sequential test because it reads or writes the entire drive, whereas the others jump between zones to reduce test time.
The X25-M V2 is very much at ease with read speeds of 214 MB/s, in line with the competition, but write speeds are not as good at “only” 80.5 MB/s. This is a bit better than the V1 but way behind the results obtained on some SSDs of the competition.
Now on to measurements of the number of 100% random accesses that can be supported by these storage systems, using IOMeter. We carry these out in small blocks of 4 KB and see how many the SSD can support each second, first using a type of sequential access and then random access. For this test we use a configuration file that carries out 10 tests for 10 minutes per test: 0, 25, 50, 75 then 100% random reads then 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% random writes.
Sequential reads: the X25-M V2 leads with 14031 I/Os per second, ie over 54 MB /s. Random performance is lower as with all the SSDs, but by much less than with hard drives. The X25-M V2 therefore does better than the V1 but remains behind the Vertexes and the MOBI 3500.
In writes hard drives do better than in reads, the advantage being linked to cache size. For SSDs however, things are harder, especially as the test was carried out on a device on which the pages had already been filled previously with sequential writes.
In spite of everything the X25-M V2 does pretty well and is 67% better than a V1, with only the Vertexes ahead. Note that in the tests on the previous page that were made up of random writes only, the X25-M V2 did better than this.