- SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW DRIVERS
- SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW PORTABLE
- SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW PC
Results might appear low, but that is part of the workload characteristic. Note that the bandwidth number reported in the results don't involve idle time compression.
SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW PC
Usually, PC Mark 8 reports time to complete the trace, but the detailed log report has the read and write bandwidth figures which we present in our performance tables. The command line version allows us to cherry-pick storage traces to run on a target drive. The storage workload involves games as well as multimedia editing applications. Evaluation of this aspect is done using PCMark 8's storage bench. They can also be used as OS-to-go boot drives.
High-performance external storage devices can also be used for editing multimedia files directly off the unit. This indicates that performance consistency under sustained traffic is not predictable for these drives. However, the relative positions across different workloads are not consistent.
SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW PORTABLE
The 5TB Backup Plus Portable comes out on top in a couple of workloads, as does the 2TB Backup Plus Slim. The same procedure is adopted for the Videos and the BR folders. This process is repeated thrice and the average of all the runs is recorded as the performance number. The segments end with the purge of the contents from the storage device. The first segment gives the write speed, while the second one gives the read speed for the storage device. robocopy is again used to transfer the content, but, from the storage drive under test to the RAM drive. The content on the RAM drive is then deleted.
robocopy is used with default arguments to mirror it onto the storage drive under test. The test starts off with the Photos folder in a RAM drive in the testbed. BR: 10.7 GB Blu-ray folder structure of the IDT Benchmark Blu-ray (the same that we use in our robocopy tests for NAS systems).Videos: 16.1 GB collection of 244 videos (MP4 as well as MOVs) in 6 sub-folders.Photos: 15.6 GB collection of 4320 photos (RAW as well as JPEGs) in 61 sub-folders.In this test, we transfer three folders with the following characteristics. Moving on to the real-world benchmarks, we first look at the results from our custom robocopy test. HDD-Based Direct-Attached Storage Benchmarks - CrystalDiskMark Performance numbers are typical of what one might expect from a 5400 RPM hard drive, with peak performance close to 150 MBps for the 5TB Backup Plus Portable and around 135 MBps for the 2TB Backup Plus Slim. We can see that the Seagate Backup Plus external storage drives do support NCQ and UASP.
SEAGATE BACKUP PLUS SLIM FOR MAC REVIEW DRIVERS
This assumes that the host port / drivers on the PC support UASP.
If the numbers for the two access traces are in the same ballpark, NCQ / UASP is not supported. The plain '4K' ones are similar to the '4K Q32T1' except that only a single queue and single thread are used.Ĭomparing the '4K Q32T1' and '4K' numbers can quickly tell us whether the storage device supports NCQ (native command queuing) / UASP (USB-attached SCSI protocol). The plain 'Seq' traces use a 1MiB block size. The 'Seq Q32T1' sequential traces use 128K block size with a queue depth of 32 from a single thread, while the '4K Q32T1' ones do random 4K accesses with the same queue and thread configurations. Internally, CrystalDiskMark uses the Microsoft DiskSpd storage testing tool. Two of the traces are sequential accesses, while two are 4K random accesses. Real-world performance testing is done with our custom test suite involving robocopy bencharks and PCMark 8's storage bench.ĬrystalDiskMark uses four different access traces for reads and writes over a configurable region size. CrystalDiskMark is used for a quick performance overview.
The testbed hardware (the Thunderbolt 3 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C port enabled by the Alpine Ridge host controller in the Hades Canyon NUC) is reused. Our evaluation routine for hard-drive based direct-attached storage devices borrows heavily from the testing methodology for flash-based direct-attached storage devices.
0 kommentar(er)
