How to calculate the max write threads on a hard drive if X speed is desired?
I'm trying to establish the max write threads a hard drive can handle, for example, if the desired speed is 20KB/sec per a thread how can I test the max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower, and let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not apart of the bottleneck.
Each file being written is different per user.
I did read Achieve Maximum write speed on hard disk posted by another user but where is this question is different is the other question focused based on how many files a second while mine is how many based on X KB/sec.
I ran a test using HD Tune and CrystalDiskMark but sadly I think this only covers single threaded transfers or I don't know how to read the results and calculate from them.
Here's the result from CrystalDiskMark, I'm unsure if this is helpful or not.
Question(s)
- How can I test a hard drive and work out how many simultaneous disks writes the drive can handle based on setting a minimal speed of 100KB/sec
hard-drive performance
add a comment |
I'm trying to establish the max write threads a hard drive can handle, for example, if the desired speed is 20KB/sec per a thread how can I test the max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower, and let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not apart of the bottleneck.
Each file being written is different per user.
I did read Achieve Maximum write speed on hard disk posted by another user but where is this question is different is the other question focused based on how many files a second while mine is how many based on X KB/sec.
I ran a test using HD Tune and CrystalDiskMark but sadly I think this only covers single threaded transfers or I don't know how to read the results and calculate from them.
Here's the result from CrystalDiskMark, I'm unsure if this is helpful or not.
Question(s)
- How can I test a hard drive and work out how many simultaneous disks writes the drive can handle based on setting a minimal speed of 100KB/sec
hard-drive performance
1
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30
add a comment |
I'm trying to establish the max write threads a hard drive can handle, for example, if the desired speed is 20KB/sec per a thread how can I test the max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower, and let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not apart of the bottleneck.
Each file being written is different per user.
I did read Achieve Maximum write speed on hard disk posted by another user but where is this question is different is the other question focused based on how many files a second while mine is how many based on X KB/sec.
I ran a test using HD Tune and CrystalDiskMark but sadly I think this only covers single threaded transfers or I don't know how to read the results and calculate from them.
Here's the result from CrystalDiskMark, I'm unsure if this is helpful or not.
Question(s)
- How can I test a hard drive and work out how many simultaneous disks writes the drive can handle based on setting a minimal speed of 100KB/sec
hard-drive performance
I'm trying to establish the max write threads a hard drive can handle, for example, if the desired speed is 20KB/sec per a thread how can I test the max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower, and let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not apart of the bottleneck.
Each file being written is different per user.
I did read Achieve Maximum write speed on hard disk posted by another user but where is this question is different is the other question focused based on how many files a second while mine is how many based on X KB/sec.
I ran a test using HD Tune and CrystalDiskMark but sadly I think this only covers single threaded transfers or I don't know how to read the results and calculate from them.
Here's the result from CrystalDiskMark, I'm unsure if this is helpful or not.
Question(s)
- How can I test a hard drive and work out how many simultaneous disks writes the drive can handle based on setting a minimal speed of 100KB/sec
hard-drive performance
hard-drive performance
edited Jan 30 at 17:57
Simon Hayter
asked Jan 30 at 17:38
Simon HayterSimon Hayter
13711
13711
1
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30
add a comment |
1
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30
1
1
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It depends entirely on whether you're doing sequential or random I/O, and how often you want / need to flush to disk...
Both 20 KB/s and 100 KB/s are negligible with today's hardware. From the CrystalDiskMark screenshot, and your concern I'd suspect you're dealing with a spinning disk... why not use an SSD?
max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower
It's not a matter of the drive throttling, but rather that the physical movement of the head takes time to complete. With random I/O this is exacerbated as the size of each written block shrinks, and the seek time between writes increases.
let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not a part of the bottleneck
Without knowing the state of the filesystem in terms of fragmentation and free space, you cannot assume this, and you certainly can't assume it over the life of a product or installation.
If you're suffering from performance issues, then you'll want to make use of buffered I/O - i.e: writing to a file actually collects data into a buffer, before writing a larger block to disk at once.
Writing 100 KB/s for a period of 10 seconds can be presented to the storage as any of the following (or wider):
- a block of 1 KB every 10ms
- a block of 10 KB every 100ms
- a block of 100 KB every 1 second
- a block of 1,000 KB every 10 seconds
Are we discussing the regular (red), or infrequent (green)?
Each of the colors will "write" the same amount of data over the same timeframe.
Writing larger blocks at once will help with throughput and filesystem fragmentation, though there is a trade-off to consider.
Writing larger blocks, less frequently - will improve throughput, but requires more RAM, and in the event of power loss or crash, a larger portion of data will be lost
Writing smaller blocks, more frequently - will degrade throughput, but requires less RAM, and less data is held in volatile memory.
The filesystem or OS may impose rules about how frequently the file cache is written to disk, so you may need to manage this caching within the application... Start with using buffered I/O, and if that doesn't cut it, review the situation.
let's pretend 1,000 users are uploading 1GB file at 20KB/sec
You're comfortable with users uploading a 1 GB file over ~14.5 hours? With all of the issues that failures incur (i.e: re-uploading from the beginning).
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
|
show 6 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1400188%2fhow-to-calculate-the-max-write-threads-on-a-hard-drive-if-x-speed-is-desired%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It depends entirely on whether you're doing sequential or random I/O, and how often you want / need to flush to disk...
Both 20 KB/s and 100 KB/s are negligible with today's hardware. From the CrystalDiskMark screenshot, and your concern I'd suspect you're dealing with a spinning disk... why not use an SSD?
max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower
It's not a matter of the drive throttling, but rather that the physical movement of the head takes time to complete. With random I/O this is exacerbated as the size of each written block shrinks, and the seek time between writes increases.
let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not a part of the bottleneck
Without knowing the state of the filesystem in terms of fragmentation and free space, you cannot assume this, and you certainly can't assume it over the life of a product or installation.
If you're suffering from performance issues, then you'll want to make use of buffered I/O - i.e: writing to a file actually collects data into a buffer, before writing a larger block to disk at once.
Writing 100 KB/s for a period of 10 seconds can be presented to the storage as any of the following (or wider):
- a block of 1 KB every 10ms
- a block of 10 KB every 100ms
- a block of 100 KB every 1 second
- a block of 1,000 KB every 10 seconds
Are we discussing the regular (red), or infrequent (green)?
Each of the colors will "write" the same amount of data over the same timeframe.
Writing larger blocks at once will help with throughput and filesystem fragmentation, though there is a trade-off to consider.
Writing larger blocks, less frequently - will improve throughput, but requires more RAM, and in the event of power loss or crash, a larger portion of data will be lost
Writing smaller blocks, more frequently - will degrade throughput, but requires less RAM, and less data is held in volatile memory.
The filesystem or OS may impose rules about how frequently the file cache is written to disk, so you may need to manage this caching within the application... Start with using buffered I/O, and if that doesn't cut it, review the situation.
let's pretend 1,000 users are uploading 1GB file at 20KB/sec
You're comfortable with users uploading a 1 GB file over ~14.5 hours? With all of the issues that failures incur (i.e: re-uploading from the beginning).
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
|
show 6 more comments
It depends entirely on whether you're doing sequential or random I/O, and how often you want / need to flush to disk...
Both 20 KB/s and 100 KB/s are negligible with today's hardware. From the CrystalDiskMark screenshot, and your concern I'd suspect you're dealing with a spinning disk... why not use an SSD?
max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower
It's not a matter of the drive throttling, but rather that the physical movement of the head takes time to complete. With random I/O this is exacerbated as the size of each written block shrinks, and the seek time between writes increases.
let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not a part of the bottleneck
Without knowing the state of the filesystem in terms of fragmentation and free space, you cannot assume this, and you certainly can't assume it over the life of a product or installation.
If you're suffering from performance issues, then you'll want to make use of buffered I/O - i.e: writing to a file actually collects data into a buffer, before writing a larger block to disk at once.
Writing 100 KB/s for a period of 10 seconds can be presented to the storage as any of the following (or wider):
- a block of 1 KB every 10ms
- a block of 10 KB every 100ms
- a block of 100 KB every 1 second
- a block of 1,000 KB every 10 seconds
Are we discussing the regular (red), or infrequent (green)?
Each of the colors will "write" the same amount of data over the same timeframe.
Writing larger blocks at once will help with throughput and filesystem fragmentation, though there is a trade-off to consider.
Writing larger blocks, less frequently - will improve throughput, but requires more RAM, and in the event of power loss or crash, a larger portion of data will be lost
Writing smaller blocks, more frequently - will degrade throughput, but requires less RAM, and less data is held in volatile memory.
The filesystem or OS may impose rules about how frequently the file cache is written to disk, so you may need to manage this caching within the application... Start with using buffered I/O, and if that doesn't cut it, review the situation.
let's pretend 1,000 users are uploading 1GB file at 20KB/sec
You're comfortable with users uploading a 1 GB file over ~14.5 hours? With all of the issues that failures incur (i.e: re-uploading from the beginning).
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
|
show 6 more comments
It depends entirely on whether you're doing sequential or random I/O, and how often you want / need to flush to disk...
Both 20 KB/s and 100 KB/s are negligible with today's hardware. From the CrystalDiskMark screenshot, and your concern I'd suspect you're dealing with a spinning disk... why not use an SSD?
max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower
It's not a matter of the drive throttling, but rather that the physical movement of the head takes time to complete. With random I/O this is exacerbated as the size of each written block shrinks, and the seek time between writes increases.
let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not a part of the bottleneck
Without knowing the state of the filesystem in terms of fragmentation and free space, you cannot assume this, and you certainly can't assume it over the life of a product or installation.
If you're suffering from performance issues, then you'll want to make use of buffered I/O - i.e: writing to a file actually collects data into a buffer, before writing a larger block to disk at once.
Writing 100 KB/s for a period of 10 seconds can be presented to the storage as any of the following (or wider):
- a block of 1 KB every 10ms
- a block of 10 KB every 100ms
- a block of 100 KB every 1 second
- a block of 1,000 KB every 10 seconds
Are we discussing the regular (red), or infrequent (green)?
Each of the colors will "write" the same amount of data over the same timeframe.
Writing larger blocks at once will help with throughput and filesystem fragmentation, though there is a trade-off to consider.
Writing larger blocks, less frequently - will improve throughput, but requires more RAM, and in the event of power loss or crash, a larger portion of data will be lost
Writing smaller blocks, more frequently - will degrade throughput, but requires less RAM, and less data is held in volatile memory.
The filesystem or OS may impose rules about how frequently the file cache is written to disk, so you may need to manage this caching within the application... Start with using buffered I/O, and if that doesn't cut it, review the situation.
let's pretend 1,000 users are uploading 1GB file at 20KB/sec
You're comfortable with users uploading a 1 GB file over ~14.5 hours? With all of the issues that failures incur (i.e: re-uploading from the beginning).
It depends entirely on whether you're doing sequential or random I/O, and how often you want / need to flush to disk...
Both 20 KB/s and 100 KB/s are negligible with today's hardware. From the CrystalDiskMark screenshot, and your concern I'd suspect you're dealing with a spinning disk... why not use an SSD?
max simultaneous writes before the drive throttles and becomes slower
It's not a matter of the drive throttling, but rather that the physical movement of the head takes time to complete. With random I/O this is exacerbated as the size of each written block shrinks, and the seek time between writes increases.
let's assume the OS, Filesystem or the Application is not a part of the bottleneck
Without knowing the state of the filesystem in terms of fragmentation and free space, you cannot assume this, and you certainly can't assume it over the life of a product or installation.
If you're suffering from performance issues, then you'll want to make use of buffered I/O - i.e: writing to a file actually collects data into a buffer, before writing a larger block to disk at once.
Writing 100 KB/s for a period of 10 seconds can be presented to the storage as any of the following (or wider):
- a block of 1 KB every 10ms
- a block of 10 KB every 100ms
- a block of 100 KB every 1 second
- a block of 1,000 KB every 10 seconds
Are we discussing the regular (red), or infrequent (green)?
Each of the colors will "write" the same amount of data over the same timeframe.
Writing larger blocks at once will help with throughput and filesystem fragmentation, though there is a trade-off to consider.
Writing larger blocks, less frequently - will improve throughput, but requires more RAM, and in the event of power loss or crash, a larger portion of data will be lost
Writing smaller blocks, more frequently - will degrade throughput, but requires less RAM, and less data is held in volatile memory.
The filesystem or OS may impose rules about how frequently the file cache is written to disk, so you may need to manage this caching within the application... Start with using buffered I/O, and if that doesn't cut it, review the situation.
let's pretend 1,000 users are uploading 1GB file at 20KB/sec
You're comfortable with users uploading a 1 GB file over ~14.5 hours? With all of the issues that failures incur (i.e: re-uploading from the beginning).
edited Jan 30 at 18:45
answered Jan 30 at 17:49
AttieAttie
11.6k32845
11.6k32845
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
|
show 6 more comments
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Sorry, random IO, new files per user.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 17:56
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Basically users will be uploading files, they vary in size but it would be deemed acceptable for them to be around 20KB/sec, obviously, a mechanical drive with 20KB/sec per user with thousands of users would cause delay due to the disk head bouncing back and forth, it's that part I want to measure. So, Ideally, I want to estimate this hard drive can handle, 250 users, but I know its not as easy as this because then you got response time between the user and disk, but I want to calculate that into the estimate as well.
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:03
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Isn't there a util either in Powershell or application that I can run which fires off 1000 write threads for example?
– Simon Hayter
Jan 30 at 18:05
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Unless you're dealing with a stream of data that needs to be captured in real time at 20 KB/sec, is this really an issue? Even so, I would expect your application / OS to cache a chunk of the upload, and write a large block at once (like the green in the graph). It may take many seconds to fill the cache and trigger a write to disk, depending on the configuration.
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:08
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
Yes, there probably is an application that can benchmark this, but I'm not convinced that is in anyway useful information for your use case...
– Attie
Jan 30 at 18:09
|
show 6 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1400188%2fhow-to-calculate-the-max-write-threads-on-a-hard-drive-if-x-speed-is-desired%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Why not throw in an SSD and bypass the problem - SSDs dont significantly suffer from differences in sequential vs random reads and are much faster all round. (Meaning the answer becomes much closer to speed/users)
– davidgo
Jan 30 at 18:30