I created a multi-resiliency volume in storage spaces using the commands quoted at the end of this post.
When I benchmark the resulting volume using Crystal Diskmark I get results that are more or less consistent with my expectations -- about 1,000 MB/s random 4K IO (250,000 IOPS) with 8 threads and a QD of 8. This is running on 2x intel DC P3520 (thank you Patrick for the quick shipping on my purchase!) drives, so that's actually slower than expected, but it's at least in the zone of reasonable.
However, when I benchmark it using diskspd, I get comically terrible results: 2MB/s (500 IOPS). This is basically what I would expect from the HDD tier, so it seems that (unlike Crystal Diskmark) diskspd is bypassing the SSD tier entirely.
The command I'm using is diskspd.exe -t8 -o8 -b4K -c8G -r -Sh w:\testfile.dat
In real world applications, the drives seem to be performing at speeds more consistent with the Crystal Diskmark results, so maybe this is just some quirk with diskspd? Am I just using it wrong? I get the same results even if I drop the -Sh flag from diskspd.
One odd thing is that diskspd gives correct results when I run it on a tiered storage spaces volume without mixed resiliency (e.g. where both the Performance and Capacity/HDD tiers are set to simple). Even odder is that I am certain this ran correctly when I tested it on the same exact hardware prior to reinstalling windows.
I am using Windows Server 2016. The HDD tier consists of a single SATA 8T WD Red drive attached via the onboard SAS controller of a X9DRD-7LN4F motherboard. The CPUs are 2x E5-2667. The SSD drives are, as noted above, 2x 2T Intel DC P3520 drives connected via startech u.2 to pcie adapters.
When I benchmark the resulting volume using Crystal Diskmark I get results that are more or less consistent with my expectations -- about 1,000 MB/s random 4K IO (250,000 IOPS) with 8 threads and a QD of 8. This is running on 2x intel DC P3520 (thank you Patrick for the quick shipping on my purchase!) drives, so that's actually slower than expected, but it's at least in the zone of reasonable.
However, when I benchmark it using diskspd, I get comically terrible results: 2MB/s (500 IOPS). This is basically what I would expect from the HDD tier, so it seems that (unlike Crystal Diskmark) diskspd is bypassing the SSD tier entirely.
The command I'm using is diskspd.exe -t8 -o8 -b4K -c8G -r -Sh w:\testfile.dat
In real world applications, the drives seem to be performing at speeds more consistent with the Crystal Diskmark results, so maybe this is just some quirk with diskspd? Am I just using it wrong? I get the same results even if I drop the -Sh flag from diskspd.
One odd thing is that diskspd gives correct results when I run it on a tiered storage spaces volume without mixed resiliency (e.g. where both the Performance and Capacity/HDD tiers are set to simple). Even odder is that I am certain this ran correctly when I tested it on the same exact hardware prior to reinstalling windows.
I am using Windows Server 2016. The HDD tier consists of a single SATA 8T WD Red drive attached via the onboard SAS controller of a X9DRD-7LN4F motherboard. The CPUs are 2x E5-2667. The SSD drives are, as noted above, 2x 2T Intel DC P3520 drives connected via startech u.2 to pcie adapters.