OK, but all you're really measuring is the benefit of "SSD" (whatever that is) vs "regular" hosting at one host, on a certain date/time, with a certain (unknown) load level on the host's back-end infrastructure. You would probably get different results at the same host on a different date/time. And there's no way you could extrapolate your results to what you might expect at a different host. Really all you can say is that "SSD hosting" is faster than "regular" hosting - which you'd expect, since your host charges more for it ;)

>wahoo, that's far beyond what we're looking at…
>
>we just try to gather in the 'FoxInCloud Web Application Dashboard' factors helping clients optimize their app.
>
>Each factor is nothing but a hint to look at, and requires expert thinking; at least we know what's worth concentrating on.
>
>>Has your hosting company explained exactly what you're getting with an "SSD"? These days you sometimes see "hosting on SSD" as an optional extra. But it can be very hard finding out exactly what that means. It might mean converged storage where an SSD array is acting as a cache for a much larger conventional disk array. If you're lucky it might mean space allocated on an all-flash array.
>>
>>Regardless, it's in the host's best interest to wring every gram of performance out of the storage subsystems. They'll (over)subscribe the throughput and IOPS until it squeals i.e. too much throughput or IOPS requests, too high a percentage of cache misses etc. How they tweak their control dials dictates the performance of your app. It's dynamic, too - if you have noisy neighbours your app's performance will suffer.
>>
>>I'd also be wary of a host trying to win your business. While wooing you your services might be run on a lightly-loaded backend. Then when the contract's signed they might put you on overloaded main infrastructure.
>>
>>>With our hosting company, we are playing with performance factors for FoxInCloud;
>>>We chose one step of the FoxinCloud process as a reference benchmark.
>>>
>>>Here is what we found (in sec.):
>>>
>>>HDD:
>>>

min: 0,047
>>>avg: 0,107
>>>max: 0,462

>>>
>>>SSD:
>>>

min: 0,078
>>>avg: 0,096 && 10% less
>>>max: 0,125 && 75% less

>>>
>>>SSD makes response times faster (in avg) and more stable (less variation).
>>>
>>>Our idea is: integrate this information in the FoxInCloud Web Application Dashboard (also see attached SS)
>>>
>>>>I see there's been a lot of effort to get this information. But, I have to wonder how useful it is - can you let us know what you're trying to do?
>>>>
>>>>- It's only useful on real hardware, it's useless in a VM. VFP running on real hardware is becoming less common these days
>>>>- Real hardware has undergone huge changes in the last 1 to 2 years. As just one example, on small systems you can see 2 types of hybrid drives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_drive . Some of them are designed to be transparent to OSs and even motherboard SATA controllers. I'm not sure in practice if they would be reported as fast mechanical drives or slow SSDs
>>>>- Enterprise storage has been converging extremely rapidly in the last year, there are new bus and device types not present in your MSDN link. As that technology trickles down you'll start seeing it in packages as small as single servers