Talk:IOPS/Archives/2016

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on IOPS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110130041702/http://www.violin-memory.com:80/products/3200-memory-array/ to http://www.violin-memory.com/products/3200-memory-array/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

M.2 NVMe Cards
The M.2 interface is new and offers performance comparable to PCIe for PCs, but there are no examples listed. It uses the new (small on-board) M.2 interface and connects thru either AHCI or the newer and faster NVMe. An example would be the 1TB Toshiba RD400 M.2 SSD, NVMe, 2600MB/s Read, 1550MB/s Write, although there are several relatively low-cost 256GB and 500GB devices on offer. Any reason why these devices using the M.2 interface are missing? Surrey John   (Talk) 00:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is incomplete
Ushkin N (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IOPS without latency is meaningless - now shown in the article; I don't have time to explain this. Some manufacturers abuse this selling you devices running at "TOP SPEED" with massive penalty in latency.
 * queue depth matters
 * Read IOPS/Write IOPS are different

NPOV
This article begins with the paragraph: > IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second, pronounced eye-ops) is a commonly misused and misunderstood performance measurement used to characterize computer storage devices like hard disk drives (HDD), solid state drives (SSD), and storage area networks (SAN). Frequently mischaracterized as a 'benchmark', IOPS numbers published by storage device manufacturers do not relate to real-world application performance.[1][2]

The content in this paragraph is fine. However, it is not an NPOV presentation of IOPS, and instead immediately comes out with a strong bias against how people measure IOPS. This paragraph should be rewritten with an objective definition of what IOPS is, and various ways of measuring it. The perspective that IOPS is "commonly misused and misunderstood" can then be integrated as a second paragraph contrasting normal presentations of IOPS against what is actually measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.233.229.66 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)