Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel

 
ElderDruid
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:41 am

Slow HD Performance?

Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:52 pm

I've been trying to figure out why my HD benchmarks are so slow. I just ran a test with Sandra, and my result was 18000, when it should have been over 30K. If anyone has suggestions on why the number is so low, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, if anyone has benchmarks of their own on similar hardware they can share, that would be good too.

Here are the details of the test:
- A7N8X mobo rev 1.06, BIOS from December 2002 (I didn't see anything in the later BIOS revisions that I need or that would do something for IDE performance, so I never upgraded)
- Windows XP, SP1, all latest patches
- 120GB WD 8MB drive, set as "Master" on IDE1, no other device on IDE1, 80GB free on drive
- 512MB memory
- I did not install the nVidia IDE drivers because I heard they're not too swift
- any other details I'm missing that would help?

Thanks!

Joe
 
Canuckle
Gerbil XP
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 6:20 pm

Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:18 pm

Have you made sure the drive is using DMA?
Start > Control Panel > System > Hardware tab > Device Manager; go to IDE ATI/ATAPI controllers and have a look. My Gigabyte nForce2 allows me to set use of DMA per channel, but then I have the nForce2 IDE drivers installed. Not that I need them, I don't have any IDE devices on this system.

Have you defragged lately?
Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Computer Management > Storage > Disk Defragmenter

On the BIOS note, updated BIOS usually includes the ability to save a BIOS. So I would update your BIOS while saving what you have and run tests to compare to see if anything has helped IDE performance. Trying with the nForce2 drivers wouldn't be a bad idea either.
 
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Posts: 7460
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI
Contact:

Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:19 pm

if you can't defrag via windows, purchase the Disk Keeper solution!
––•–√\/––√\/––•–– nostalgia is an emotion for people with no future ––•–√\/––√\/––•–-
 
ElderDruid
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:41 am

Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:19 pm

Thanks. I do have DMA enabled, and I have defragmented. I'll try the newer BIOS, but I'm worried about the nVidia IDE drivers. Is it true that they can be problematic?
 
pez-king
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 9:45 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:39 pm

Install the nvidia IDE driver. Newest ones on the site, 2.45 work SWELL for me.

I have the same motherboard as you, just mine is a 2.0 revision. If it turns out they are causing any problems (i doubt they would) just uninstall them.

You have nothing to lose really.
 
Canuckle
Gerbil XP
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 6:20 pm

Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:27 pm

jmsabatini wrote:
...I'm worried about the nVidia IDE drivers. Is it true that they can be problematic?


I've never heard that - only thing remotely similar was on Linux side.
 
Canuckle
Gerbil XP
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 6:20 pm

Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:27 pm

thegleek wrote:
if you can't defrag via windows, purchase the Disk Keeper solution!


3rd party defrag software is unnecessary for WinXP.
 
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Posts: 7460
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI
Contact:

Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:12 pm

Canuckle wrote:
thegleek wrote:
if you can't defrag via windows, purchase the Disk Keeper solution!


3rd party defrag software is unnecessary for WinXP.


i know that. ppl who use NT 3/4 still need it. cuz back in the day, microsoft
thought that NTFS would never need defragging... stupid idiots.
––•–√\/––√\/––•–– nostalgia is an emotion for people with no future ––•–√\/––√\/––•–-
 
just brew it!
Administrator
Posts: 54500
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:49 pm

thegleek wrote:
i know that. ppl who use NT 3/4 still need it. cuz back in the day, microsoft thought that NTFS would never need defragging... stupid idiots.

I don't think it was so much a matter of thinking it wasn't needed, as in being unwilling/unable to implement a decent one themselves by the time the OS shipped. So they waited for a 3rd party NTFS defragmenter (Diskeeper) to hit the market, then licensed the technology for inclusion in Win2K.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Canuckle
Gerbil XP
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 6:20 pm

Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:21 pm

thegleek wrote:
ppl who use NT 3/4 still need it. cuz back in the day, microsoft
thought that NTFS would never need defragging... stupid idiots.


Do you see me stating 3rd party defraggers aren't needed for NT? ;)

Win 95/98/SE and NT all needed 3rd party defraggers - 98SE's defrag was unbelievable poor; it wasn't just an NTFS thing.

Thankfully they corrected this with the Win2k release - don't know about ME, thankfully hadn't had to support to know. Die Win9x, die... :)
 
ZooTech
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2879
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:37 pm
Location: Putting the "Bop" in the Bop-Shee-Bop-Shee-Bop
Contact:

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:54 pm

Canuckle wrote:
thegleek wrote:
ppl who use NT 3/4 still need it. cuz back in the day, microsoft
thought that NTFS would never need defragging... stupid idiots.


Do you see me stating 3rd party defraggers aren't needed for NT? ;)

Win 95/98/SE and NT all needed 3rd party defraggers - 98SE's defrag was unbelievable poor; it wasn't just an NTFS thing.

Thankfully they corrected this with the Win2k release - don't know about ME, thankfully hadn't had to support to know. Die Win9x, die... :)


WindowsME has the same poor defrag program Win98SE shipped with (i.e. won't optimize swap file, takes forever, etc...). Norton Speed Disk works well for me.
Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant
like having a peeing section in a swimming pool?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On