Seagate SSHD slow small reads?

[orangecat]

So I just installed a Seagate FireCuda SSHD in my desktop via SATA 3 and I ran ATTO to check the speed and under the 4k tests has very poor read performance. Is this normal for an SSHD? I've only owned normal HDD's before and the speed was higher at 0.5.

 

[NoxiousOdor]

I don't know if this is normal or not but I think it is a bit on the slow side probably. Neither am I familiar with this program but I do know that SSHDs are neat in that they will become faster for items you access often. The more you are using a particular file on your computer, the faster accessing it will be because the drive will learn what things you use most commonly and it will prioritize those things.

[Mira Yurizaki]

That's expected. For one hard drives have abysmal 4K performance. On another SSHDs don't suddenly give you the performance of an SSD and they should be smart enough now to figure out what to keep and what not to keep. So running a benchmark once isn't going to give you representative results of using cache only.

[orangecat]

2 minutes ago, WhisperingKnickers said:

I don't know if this is normal or not but I think it is a bit on the slow side probably. Neither am I familiar with this program but I do know that SSHDs are neat in that they will become faster for items you access often. The more you are using a particular file on your computer, the faster accessing it will be because the drive will learn what things you use most commonly and it will prioritize those things.

Yea I know all that I'm just curious why the read speeds in the benchmark seem low. So far the drive is actually pretty fast but thats was just something i was curious about.

[orangecat]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

That's expected. For one hard drives have abysmal 4K performance. On another SSHDs don't suddenly give you the performance of an SSD and they should be smart enough now to figure out what to keep and what not to keep. So running a benchmark once isn't going to give you representative results of using cache only.

I ran it twice and the results were identical each time. I don't expect the SSD to take over right away but I thought fir sure the first read would be from the disk. Maybe there's something with the firmware that makes it have poor small read speed.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, Kilobytez95 said:

I ran it twice and the results were identical each time. I don't expect the SSD to take over right away but I thought fir sure the first read would be from the disk. Maybe there's something with the firmware that makes it have poor small read speed.

Now that I thought about it more, you may never get the faster performance to show on a benchmark. Storage benchmarks create a temporary file that they do work on, then delete it. Since the file only exists once as far as the drive is concerned, it won't be cached.

[orangecat]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Now that I thought about it more, you may never get the faster performance. Storage benchmarks create a temporary file that they do work on, then delete it. Since the file only exists once as far as the drive is concerned, it won't be cached.

Yea true but that doesn't really explains the poor read prefomance from disk. Weirdly the write is way way higher in comparison.