CrystalDiskMark Test Discovers Lopsided Throughput; What Setting Should be Changed? I'm running time trials on a new Windows 2012 Server host with PureStorage FlashArray SSD LUNs attached. I conduct an initial test with CrystalDiskMark and discover write performance is substantially better than read performance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :   339.675 MB/s
          Sequential Write :  1454.235 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :   227.305 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :  2313.737 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    10.719 MB/s [  2616.9 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :    74.720 MB/s [ 18242.2 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   367.156 MB/s [ 89637.8 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   175.918 MB/s [ 42948.7 IOPS]

  Test : 4000 MB [G: 87.9% (450.2/512.0 GB)] (x5)
    OS : Windows NT 6.2 Server Standard Edition (full installation) [6.2 Build 9200] (x64)


Is this expected for a FlashArray config or can it be configured at the controller or LUN level to be more optimal for reads than writes? The host will host a data warehouse with tables already in the 250 GB+ range.
This is an old question bumped to the front page, so the MattyZDBA has probably resolved the issue by now, but for future readers:


When posting a question about storage performance it is important to give as much detail about the storage configuration as you can: drive types (traditional, SSD), connectivity to the drives (local nVME drives, Gbit LAN, fibre channel, ...), array size, cache details, ...
While generic artificial benchmarks like CrystalDiskMark have their place, you will get much more useful results from tools designed more specifically for testing database loads on storage arrays. Better yet, if you have a specific application in mind, tests specific to that would give even more realistic results for you (though if it is your own application you might have to construct those tests yourself).
Test : 4000 MB assuming that means the benchmark tool ran each of its steps with 4GB of data, that is not enough to properly test a good modern storage array and could explain the faster-write-than-read behaviour. If the array has a large battery-backed cache then you may find that hardly any of that 4Gb has even gone to the drives yet and all that this has tested is the connectivity between the array and the machine you are testing on. The read operations were presumably reads from parts of the array not just written to or otherwise recently accessed, so they were pulling data from the drives instead of just interacting with faster memory.