- Sep 28, 2004
- 1,241
- 0
- 0
I think my HDD's are bottlenecking my system:
I currently have them set-up
IDE channel 0:
Maxtor 120Gb 7,200rpm, 2mb cashe (C:\system) on cable select
Seagate barracuda 160Gb 7,200rpm, 8mb cashe (M\Media) on cable select
IDE channel 1:
1xGeneric 24xDVD drive
Question:
Would I get better performance by using a spare IDE controller card and putting the media drive on it - so each drive would have a sperate channel??
Updates no:1
As suggested by 'Jeff7' ("So if you do a lot of drive to drive transfers, having them on the same channel will slow it down...............Adding another controller would of course alleviate all of this"). I added a IDE controller card 2x channels upto 133mhz and wondered what to put where?
'Airfoil' had a statement "Move only your backup/optical drives to the controller"
Hence a possible set-up change "how about creating a benchmark of your own by moving the same bunch AVI files around before and after you make the change?"
Update no: 2
Real-Time HHD test
A real world test. Before each test the PC was started from a cold-boot, disks were de-fragged, then the applications launched. We are testing a copy-paste speed, of a 698Mb AVI between both drives.
The drives are less than a month old each, have 'SMART' disabled, are using 80pin cables, have no (found) Viruses, Spy-ware, Malicious ware, etc, and are housed, each in an anti-vibration/shock, rubber mouted, aluminium HDD caddy.
The file starts on the desktop (C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop) of the Maxtor 120Gb 7,200 2mb cashe whilst running the following, average, everyday, applicaitons:
Azureus with 6x torrents
Firefox 3x tabs (1x includes big flash)
Outlook (update every minute)
The file will finish on the Media drive (E:\Films), Seagate 160Gb, 7,200rpm, 8mb cashe whilst encoding a 4.3Gb DVD to a 700mb AVI using Dr.Divx.
Current set-up = 27s
With controller card = 14s!!!s
It looks like the drives like having a channel all to their own - with the optic's on the controller card.
Update no:3
Yeah, I know it's not scientific or 'in-depth'. The real reason is that I'm lazy to run benncies
I currently have them set-up
IDE channel 0:
Maxtor 120Gb 7,200rpm, 2mb cashe (C:\system) on cable select
Seagate barracuda 160Gb 7,200rpm, 8mb cashe (M\Media) on cable select
IDE channel 1:
1xGeneric 24xDVD drive
Question:
Would I get better performance by using a spare IDE controller card and putting the media drive on it - so each drive would have a sperate channel??
Updates no:1
As suggested by 'Jeff7' ("So if you do a lot of drive to drive transfers, having them on the same channel will slow it down...............Adding another controller would of course alleviate all of this"). I added a IDE controller card 2x channels upto 133mhz and wondered what to put where?
'Airfoil' had a statement "Move only your backup/optical drives to the controller"
Hence a possible set-up change "how about creating a benchmark of your own by moving the same bunch AVI files around before and after you make the change?"
Update no: 2
Real-Time HHD test
A real world test. Before each test the PC was started from a cold-boot, disks were de-fragged, then the applications launched. We are testing a copy-paste speed, of a 698Mb AVI between both drives.
The drives are less than a month old each, have 'SMART' disabled, are using 80pin cables, have no (found) Viruses, Spy-ware, Malicious ware, etc, and are housed, each in an anti-vibration/shock, rubber mouted, aluminium HDD caddy.
The file starts on the desktop (C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop) of the Maxtor 120Gb 7,200 2mb cashe whilst running the following, average, everyday, applicaitons:
Azureus with 6x torrents
Firefox 3x tabs (1x includes big flash)
Outlook (update every minute)
The file will finish on the Media drive (E:\Films), Seagate 160Gb, 7,200rpm, 8mb cashe whilst encoding a 4.3Gb DVD to a 700mb AVI using Dr.Divx.
Current set-up = 27s
With controller card = 14s!!!s
It looks like the drives like having a channel all to their own - with the optic's on the controller card.
Update no:3
Yeah, I know it's not scientific or 'in-depth'. The real reason is that I'm lazy to run benncies