4 ms·
The claim about parallelism isn't true. Most benchmarks and my own experience show that sequential reads are still significantly faster than random reads on mo
by CoolGuySteve 5y ago
The claim about parallelism isn't true. Most benchmarks and my own experience show that sequential reads are still significantly faster than random reads on most NVME drives.
However, random read performance is only somewhere between a 3rd to half as fast as sequential compared to a magnetic disk where it's often 1/10th as fast.
- pkaye 5y agoWhat kind of queue depth do you test the read performance? The sequential can be made fast at low queue depth by the SSD controller doing prefetch reads internally. I've worked on such algorithms myself.
- CoolGuySteve 5y agoShow me a benchmark at any queue depth where random reads are as fast as the fastest sequential rate for that drive. It's simply not true. I suspect it has something to do with prediction on the controller but I'm also not confidently spewing a bunch of bullshit about drive architecture unlike this article.