# Latency vs IOPS. How can one conflict with the other?

I was reading about latency and IOPS, and I understood what they mean and their significance in the storage world. But what I do not understand (many places it is mentioned) is that how can the numbers actually conflict with each other when an example is given.

In this explanation, the author states one of the examples saying..

Mr. Customer, our box can do a quarter million random 4K IOPS – and not from cache!”

…at 50ms latency.

Here, if the latency in 50ms then 4K IO's should take 200s. And if really 4K IO's is being completed in 1 sec, then should'nt the average latency be 4ms?

Can someone please explain what I am missing here.

• "4K IOPS" simply refers to certain kinds of IOPS. It does not mean "4000 operations". It means e.g. "operations in which we read 4KB of data from the disk". Therefore multiplying 50ms by 4000 really makes no sense (I guess this is how you got the number "200s"). The number of operations per second in the quote is "a quarter million", i.e. 250 000, not 4000. Sep 11 '16 at 20:55
• Anyhow, I guess there is some confusion about the definitions of throughput (here "IOPS") and latency. Reading e.g. some of these answers probably helps to see why throughput and latency are not directly related to each other: quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-latency-and-throughput Sep 11 '16 at 21:05
• Each 4KB I/O operation has a latency of 50 ms. As long as they are independent, the system can perform 250,000 such operations per second. For example, the first I/O operation could complete after 50 ms, the second might complete after 50.004 ms, the third after 50.008 ms, etc. Sep 12 '16 at 0:23