In Figure 6, we compare *LRW*, *CSCAN*,
and *WOW* using random write workload
(Section V-C) directed to Full Backend on RAID-5
and RAID-10. Since the workload has almost no temporal locality,
the throughput of *LRW* remains constant as the NVS size
increases. In contrast, *WOW* and *CSCAN* exhibit
logarithmic gain in throughput as a function of the size of NVS by
exploiting spatial locality (also see the related discussion in
Section II-B). For RAID-10, at the lowest NVS size of 32
pages, *WOW* and *CSCAN* outperform *LRW* by 16%,
while, quite dramatically, at the NVS size of 65,536 pages, *WOW* and *CSCAN* outperform *LRW* by 200%. Similarly, for
RAID-5, at the lowest NVS size of 64 pages, *WOW* and *CSCAN* outperform *LRW* by 38%, while, quite dramatically, at
the NVS size of 16,384 pages, *WOW* and *CSCAN* outperform
*LRW* by 147%.

While, for brevity, we have shown results for a queue depth of 20. When we used a larger queue depth, performance of all three algorithms increased uniformly, producing virtually identical curves. Increasing queue depth beyond 128 in either RAID-10 or RAID-5 does not seem to help throughput significantly.