centos79-1006-311 centos79-1006-311 Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3: Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 (3 Cores), Motherboard: Intel 440BX (6.00 BIOS), Chipset: Intel 440BX/ZX/DX, Memory: 1 x 4096 MB DRAM, Disk: 223GB Virtual disk + 84GB Virtual disk, Graphics: VMware SVGA II, Network: VMware VMXNET3 OS: CentOS 7.9.2009, Kernel: 3.10.0-1160.42.2.el7.x86_64 (x86_64), Display Server: X Server, Compiler: GCC 4.8.5 20150623, File-System: xfs, Screen Resolution: 1176x885, System Layer: VMware LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Hot Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.072 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.2 |=============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Fill Sync Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1090.69 |=========================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 25.1 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Overwrite Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.559 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 24.3 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.971 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Read Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.037 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Seek Random Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2.024 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Random Delete Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.752 |============================= LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill MB/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 31.9 |============================== LevelDB 1.22 Benchmark: Sequential Fill Microseconds Per Op < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 6.883 |============================= SQLite 3.30.1 Threads / Copies: 1 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 17.04 |============================= BlogBench 1.1 Test: Read Final Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 541630 |============================ BlogBench 1.1 Test: Write Final Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 945 |=============================== ebizzy 0.3 Records/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 73144 |============================= Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.16404884 |======================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.00201362 |======================== OpenSSL 3.0 Algorithm: SHA256 byte/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 529762627 |========================= OpenSSL 3.0 Algorithm: RSA4096 sign/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 295.2 |============================= OpenSSL 3.0 Algorithm: RSA4096 verify/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 19022.1 |=========================== Apache CouchDB 3.1.1 Bulk Size: 100 - Inserts: 1000 - Rounds: 24 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 136.39 |============================ MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 1 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2943 |============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 8 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1716 |============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 16 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1158 |============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 32 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 808 |=============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 64 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 388 |=============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 128 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 203 |=============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 256 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 154 |=============================== MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 512 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 61 |================================ MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 1024 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 14 |================================ MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 2048 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 15 |================================ MariaDB 10.6.4 Clients: 4096 Queries Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 15 |================================ PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 18754 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.053 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1303 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.768 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 36988 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.352 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 35584 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2.812 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 30698 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8.157 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1304 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 39.22 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 24736 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 20.23 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 16437 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.061 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1048 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 97.00 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 514 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 493.18 |============================ PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 275 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1824.49 |=========================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1088 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.920 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 30877 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.620 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1031 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 0.970 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 29954 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3.344 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 25890 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9.657 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3948 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 12.67 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 16925 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 29.57 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 439 |=============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2.579 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11487 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4.931 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 82898.00 |========================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4005 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 24.97 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3269 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 76.49 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2489 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 100 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 201.00 |============================ PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11325 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9.397 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 10765 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 24.55 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3142 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 16.05 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11146 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 44.87 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 1 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 243818.27 |========================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2510002.79 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2964 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 33.74 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2715 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 92.24 |============================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2310 |============================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 1000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 217.22 |============================ PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 6075845.27 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 18345089.02 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 50 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5361656.56 |======================== PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Only - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 22802369.88 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 100 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 12199870.66 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 250 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 36891588.08 |======================= PostgreSQL pgbench 14.0 Scaling Factor: 10000 - Clients: 500 - Mode: Read Write - Average Latency ms < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 81367267.67 |======================= SQLite Speedtest 3.30 Timed Time - Size 1,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 113.80 |============================ Memtier_benchmark 1.2.17 Protocol: Redis Ops/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1314620.83 |======================== Apache Cassandra 4.0 Test: Writes Op/s > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8717 |============================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 1 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 61231.07 |========================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 20 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 99340.44 |========================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 100 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 99266.80 |========================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 200 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 98472.56 |========================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 500 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 88781.87 |========================== nginx 1.21.1 Concurrent Requests: 1000 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 83529.04 |========================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5575 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 178 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8105 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 492 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 6960 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Increment - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3362 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8425 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 118 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 19116 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 208 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 25063 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 636 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 46577 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 21 |================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 49896 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 80 |================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 50804 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Random Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 323 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 8508 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 117 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 15304 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 260 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 19555 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 816 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 53400 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 18 |================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 56849 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 70 |================================ Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7253 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 136 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7763 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 514 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 55134 |============================= Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Sequential Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 288 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 4210 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Read - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3806 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 1 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 3234 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 1 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 308 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 4 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 5304 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 4 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 753 |=============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 16 Rows Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 6722 |============================== Apache HBase 2.2.3 Test: Async Random Write - Clients: 16 Microseconds - Average Latency < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 2378 |============================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 1 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7342.38 |=========================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 20 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 12889.88 |========================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 100 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 13664.16 |========================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 200 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 13297.59 |========================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 500 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 12807.86 |========================== Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 Concurrent Requests: 1000 Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 11398.26 |========================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 200 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9771.40 |=========================== Apache Siege 2.4.29 Concurrent Users: 250 Transactions Per Second > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 9592.99 |=========================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 170696 |============================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1.556 |============================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 7.377 |============================= InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 4 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 403800.1 |========================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 64 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 399839.1 |========================== InfluxDB 1.8.2 Concurrent Streams: 1024 - Batch Size: 10000 - Tags: 2,5000,1 - Points Per Series: 10000 val/sec > Higher Is Better Virtual disk - 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 . 1401.9 |============================