Fly in the ointment?
It is perfectly valid to run a different workload than what is spec'd by vendors, and report the results of this test. It is, however, grossly unfair to report that a product does not "deliver its advertised goods" when the advertisement is for apples, and the comparison made was to oranges.
It's worth noting that the that the CSCS folks did not duplicate workloads quoted by the vendors in any of the cases. Fusion quotes for 512B IOs, not 4k. Virident quotes for a 75%/25% read/write workload- not the read only and write-only workloads tested in this paper. No flash vendor I've encountered specifies numbers for performance using XFS.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
