The document compares the performance of CX4-120 EFD flash storage versus CX3-80 15K FC disk storage. It finds that the CX4-120 flash storage provides around 12 times the random read performance, 5 times the random write performance, and 8-10 times the performance for random 60% read/40% write workloads, while reducing the required number of drives by 42%. Key metrics like IOPS, response times, and IOPS per drive are significantly better for the CX4-120 flash storage compared to the CX3-80 FC disk storage.

1. Enterprise Flash TechnologyBenchmark SummaryTechnology/Consulting/Managed Solutions

4. IOPS (CX4-120 EFD vs. CX3-80 15K FC)

5. Response Time (CX4-120 EFD vs. CX3-80 15K FC)

6. IOPS per Drive (CX4-120 EFD vs. CX3-80 15K FC)Note: FC drive IOps exceed theoretical maximum of 180 IOPS due to cache benefit.

7. CX3-80 Jetstress BenchmarkDatabase Sizing and ThroughputJetstress System ParametersDisk Subsystem PerformanceCX4-120 Jetstress BenchmarkDatabase Sizing and ThroughputJetstress System ParametersDisk Subsystem Performance

8. ConclusionsReduced storage footprint from 24 drives to 14 drives = ~ 42% reducution~ 12x Random Read Performance Improvement~ 5x Random Write Performance Improvement~ 8 – 10 Performance Improvement with Random 60% Read / 40% Write workload