Performance Consistency

Our performance consistency test explores the extent to which a drive can reliably sustain performance during a long-duration random write test. Specifications for consumer drives typically list peak performance numbers only attainable in ideal conditions. The performance in a worst-case scenario can be drastically different as over the course of a long test drives can run out of spare area, have to start performing garbage collection, and sometimes even reach power or thermal limits.

In addition to an overall decline in performance, a long test can show patterns in how performance varies on shorter timescales. Some drives will exhibit very little variance in performance from second to second, while others will show massive drops in performance during each garbage collection cycle but otherwise maintain good performance, and others show constantly wide variance. If a drive periodically slows to hard drive levels of performance, it may feel slow to use even if its overall average performance is very high.

To maximally stress the drive's controller and force it to perform garbage collection and wear leveling, this test conducts 4kB random writes with a queue depth of 32. The drive is filled before the start of the test, and the test duration is one hour. Any spare area will be exhausted early in the test and by the end of the hour even the largest drives with the most overprovisioning will have reached a steady state. We use the last 400 seconds of the test to score the drive both on steady-state average writes per second and on its performance divided by the standard deviation.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Performance

No, that's not a mistake. The abysmal steady-state performance of both MK8115 prototypes is a consequence of not having a cache for the logical to physical address mapping. Each write in this test is overwriting an in-use logical block address. While the controller's wear leveling ensures that the new data will go to a new location (the physical address of which is probably kept in a register on the controller), the controller has to read from the flash to figure out which physical page just got invalidated and became a candidate for garbage collection. Meanwhile, the garbage collection process has to scan the flash instead of a DRAM cache in order to determine if all the pages in an erase block contain stale data or if there's some live data that needs to be moved before the controller can erase that block.

This test isn't easy for any consumer SSD, but a DRAM-less SSD suffers acutely. Still, in spite of all the barriers to efficient flash management, the MK8115 drives are faster than a hard drive.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency

The MK8115 samples have poor steady-state throughput, but their consistency is pretty good. Maxiotek has ensured that the garbage collection never completely stalls the drive's progress on completing host write operations.

IOPS over time
Default
25% Over-Provisioning

Before the MK8115 SSDs run out of spare area, their random write speeds aren't horrific, and are better than what most SSDs manage in steady state. It's only when the spare area runs out that the MK8115 gets into serious trouble. The TLC drive takes longer to reach this point, because the odd 48GB capacity of Micron's 3D TLC forced Maxiotek to give the drive much more overprovisioning than a typical 512GB SSD.

Steady-State IOPS over time
Default
25% Over-Provisioning

There is some cyclical behavior in the steady state of the MK8115 drives, but less than for most SSDs. The MLC drive in particular is extremely consistent save for periodic but very short bursts of higher performance.

Inroduction AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
Comments Locked

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • jabber - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    Its like Video Recorders or DVD players. The first ones weighed 30 kilos and were built like they were made during the Industrial Revolution. By the time they stopped making them they weighed 3 kilos, had 70% fewer parts and were mostly plastic.
  • Magichands8 - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    Yep! Prices are getting higher in many cases even if they aren't dropping AND performance is either mediocre or just getting worse. Like I've said before, somewhere there are people buying such products. I don't know who they are or what's wrong withe them but I guess manufacturers are going to continue the trend for as long these people have money to lose. Even though it's dismaying to see I won't have much trouble waiting them out though. There's just very little value in most current offerings.
  • MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    I'm not sure of an instance where performance has dropped in the same price band over the past couple of years. Please feel free to enlighten me
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    I'm one of those people buying such things. In my case, I was using mechanical hard disks until the middle of last year and I'm slowly (due to unusually high NAND prices) purchasing low performance SSDs for my home computers. Cheap, relatively slow SSDs still let me enjoy faster and more responsive storage. Since I'm not a power user or someone that's interested in waving around my consumer electronics like they're an extension of my reproductive organs, I have no want or need for the fastest and most expensive tier of solid state storage.

    While you wonder what's wrong with us for our purchases, we wonder what's wrong with you for being worried about what we buy when you can simply mind your business and buy a higher end product meant to meet your needs or desires.
  • MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    I definitely respect your choices, as even a low-end SSD can best a HDD for metrics a typical home user would care about.
  • melgross - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    Right now, there are memory shortages. NAND shortages are expected to last until the end of the year. Then prices will begin dropping again.
  • beginner99 - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    Yeah if this continues it will take less than a year and they will actually manage to perform worse than HDDs.
  • JimmiG - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link

    I agree, unless you absolutely need more SSD storage right now, I'd recommend holding off until next year.
  • MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    I just hope the shortage is going to end, and we can go back to cheaper SSDs. I'm also unsure of the usefulness of this drive, but I can see it being used in systems a notch above budget systems.
  • looncraz - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link

    I just want a 2TB SSD that costs $200 US and performs better than a hard drive (no spin up delays, lower latency, no moving parts).

    I could deal with 150MB/s transfer rates and even 2ms latencies for that. Still worlds better than the hard drives I use for storage now considering I have to spin them down as they are only accessed every few hours a couple times a day (but then stream data at 40MB/s+ for a couple hours).

    I would buy three without hesitation.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now