Review Index:

OCZ Z-Drive R4 1.6TB PCIe 2.0 x8 SSD Full Review - 8 SF-2200's Can't Be Wrong!

Subject: Storage
Manufacturer: OCZ Technology
Tagged: z-drive, ssd, r4, pcie, pci-e, ocz

PCPer File Copy Test

Our custom PCPer-FC test does some fairly simple file creation and copy routines in order to test the storage system for speed.  The script creates a set of files of varying sizes, times the creation process, then copies the same files to another partition on the same hard drive and times the copy process as well.  There are four file patterns that we used to try and find any strong or weak points in the hardware: 10 files @ 1000 MB each, 100 files @ 100 MB each, 500 files @ 10 MB each and 1000 files at 1 MB each. 

View Full Size

View Full Size

We knew it was going to happen eventually, and the R4 did it. It broke our File Creation test. It appears the method we were using to create the files makes them in a very single-threaded manner, and does so using smallish block writes. This type of write pattern can not be effectively scaled up without some sort of caching method at play. ioDrive's are able to complete this particular test faster as there are less 'links in the chain', resulting in lower latencies for each single threaded small write.

Now, the File Copy test is an entirely different story. We use a simple CMD prompt batch copy of the files generated in the File Creation test. This lets Windows have its way with the Z-Drive. From what we see in the results, it appears to enjoy it immensely. 10x 1GB files, copied from *and back to* the same Z-Drive, took only 9 seconds! That requires a read/write throughput of over 2GB/sec (yes, GigaBYTES per second).

Also of note, the File Copy was over 3x faster than an ioDrive with 160GB of *SLC* flash, and 22x faster than the 600GB VelociRaptor!

October 2, 2011 | 08:49 PM - Posted by Chris Stevenson (not verified)

This drive is so fast, that it can actually change the way programmers approach problems. With a disk speed a sizable fraction of RAM, I/O stops being a bottleneck. The big users of this will probably be High Performance clusters, where 4 CPU servers (each with 8+ cores) exist. The benefit of This incredibly fast storage will do wonders for these systems.

I'm kinda guessing that CPUs will be the bottleneck for the server crowd, and tthis'll push CPU development that much further. (Hey, I can hope!)

October 12, 2011 | 08:34 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I really hope developers won't stop optimizing their code. Data access can't ever be fast enough. Wherever you're running huge databases with tons of users, you'll be happy for every single timesaving tick.

October 20, 2011 | 08:57 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think the biggest bottleneck for the foreseeable future is still network transfer speeds, which also puts a serious onus on programmers to optimize code as far as disk reads/writes, optimizing disk reads/writes to fill out TCP packets as much as possible and not have extraneous information sent over networks is still going to be the key to successful communication with servers. At least until new standards for network communication actually come into play.

October 7, 2011 | 05:30 AM - Posted by Sam (not verified)

Thank you for your effort on making this review , But I seriously don't see the point , Did you really think we ( the readers ) can afford such thing ? the item you reviewed is listed at 11,200$ , with this kind of money ill have all the high end pcs for the next minimum 15 years ! Minus this SSD.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.