Comparing 微米 7450, 三星PM9A3 and Solidigm D5-P5430

RocksDB is a storage focused key value database that is the backbone of many operations at Meta. Here’s their description from RocksDB.org:

Meta更喜欢DB bench as a workload generation tool for RocksDB, as it addresses the issue of key-space localities and emulates the workloads of real-world key-value stores. This benchmark can synthetically generate more precise key-value queries that represent the reads and writes of key-value stores to the underlying storage system.

We tested the storage performance of a single device storing a 1TB database using the following data center class NVMe 固态硬盘s:

美光7450固态硬盘: Our mainstream performance drive using 176-layer TLC NAND, designed to support our cloud partners with excellent QoS and 作为PCIe Gen4 performance.

三星PM9A3: A read intensive, TLC NAND, 作为PCIe Gen4, NVMe 固态硬盘.

Solidigm D5-P5430:主流, QLC基础, 作为PCIe Gen4, NVMe 固态硬盘 that Solidigm is marketing in the same space as Samsung 9A3 and 微米 7450.

测试配置

In this blog, we discuss 3 workloads – 

• Read while writing – this workload uses multiple threads for reads and just one thread for writes.
• Read random write random – it is a mix workload where multiple threads do random-read and random-write operation.
• Read random – this workload reads randomly from an existing database.

性能结果

无花果.1通过图.3 illustrate the 99th percentile read latency (in milliseconds) on the y-axis and the database operations per second on the x-axis for the 3 workloads. Each data point represents the average of a 20-minute run at a DB bench thread count (8, 16, 32, 64, 96).

Read while writing uses 1 write thread and scales up reads as you increase DB bench threads. The 微米 7450 and Samsung 9A3 show similar behavior at each thread count, with 7450 having better scaling at 96 threads.

The Solidigm D5-P5430 demonstrates more than double the 99% read latency and reaches a maximum ops/s that is only 65% of the other 固态硬盘s.

In the Read Random Write Random workload, the Samsung 9A3 has a slight advantage at lower thread counts, while the 7450 has the advantage at the top end. Performance is similar between these drives. 

Solidigm D5-P5430具有1.5x the read latency and 30% lower performance (ops/s).

最后, the Random Read benchmark again shows close performance and latency between 7450 and 9A3, with 7450 scaling higher at 96 threads and PM9A3 performing slightly better at lower threads. 

The Solidigm D5-P5430 has up to 1.8x the read latency and 30% lower performance.

图2中的带宽测量.4 was taken for 96 thread count across the 3 workloads. 微米 7450 shows slightly higher bandwidth than Samsung 9A3 for all the three workloads whereas Solidigm 5430 has relatively lower bandwidth.

总之, our analysis reveals 微米 7450 and Samsung 9A3 demonstrate comparable performance with the 微米 7450 showing a slight advantage at higher thread counts and the Samsung 9A3 has a slight advantage at lower thread counts. The Solidigm D5-P5430 consistently exhibits the lowest performance across all the workloads and thread counts, indicating it is the least performant drive in this comparative study.