Hey StackOverlow Community,
I currently am using some software that stores a bunch of XML files. All the files are under 25k bytes. The makers of the software state the performance is based on multiple concurrent tiny reads. The faster you can read from the drives the better it can perform.
After, loads of performance testing they seem to be telling the truth. However, before throwing money at this I want to test as much as possible. The server doesn't ever seem to get past 35% CPU usage or ever peak memory wise.
Server setup is as follows
- Windows Server 2003 Standard
- Quad Core 2.6 Ghz
- 4GB Ram
- 2 Hardware Raid Cards
- 8 15k SCSI drives in RAID10 (hardware raid)
I am thinking if I change the setup to use 2 Intel X-25 M in RAID0 I would get better performance. Backups aren't an issue. We have a live replication to another server and an offsite nightly backup which also goes to tape. I currently tried a single Intel X-25 on a different server and it seems promising.
So the questions I have are as follows -
- Should I expect better performance from 2 SSD drive setup than the 8 SCSI drive performance?
- Any special SSD setup steps that I should take? (Block size, etc?)
- Currently testing in Windows Server 2003? Does this hinder in anyway? Should I move to Windows Server 2008? (Linux, etc. aren't valid options)
- Any tweaks to the OS that I should do?
- Different/Better benchmark software?
Anyone experience or test anything similar please let me know.
Some benchmark info using (CrystalDiskMark) 5 passes 50Mb
Type - Read Mb/s - Write Mb/s Seq - 225 - 50.84 512K - 152.7 - 53.73 4K - 18.85 - 35.35
Type - Read Mb/s - Write Mb/s Seq - 549.8 - 352.2 512K - 538.3 - 342.2 4K - 89.30 - 65.19
TL;DR - Are 2 SSD drives in RAID0 or RAID10 faster than 8 15k SCSI drives in RAID10?
Thanks for reading.