> I also realized that storage's performance had very little to do with the benchmark's scores as in order to game the benchmark one would simply add more memory.
Reminds me of the time [1] Fusion-IO showed how good their drives were for SQL Server by running benchmarks with just 16GB of RAM enabled, even though the servers had 384GB RAM.
Under direct questioning, they admitted that if you just used the rest of the RAM in the server, their drives didn't have any effect, and that's why they limited the server so badly for the presentation. (sigh)