Does short-stroking work?

[ikjadoon]

Hi! I've been looking for a new hard drive and have heard of something called short-stroking, in which you basically make partitions and that cuts your access time in half. Is this just a myth or does it really work? If so, why don't more people use it?

~Ibrahim~

[upriverpaddler]

I've never heard it called short stroking, but I do it. Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition

The advantages are mostly so small that they are useless.

[ikjadoon]

Really? Doesn't halving your access time do at least something?

What if you had two physical drives? I have a 320GB right now and am getting a 640GB,hopefully. Does it still apply?

~Ibrahim~

[upriverpaddler]

Really?

No, not really. If you cut milliseconds in half, what are you really gaining.

IMHO, the most important thing is to have any two groups of data that will be accessed simultaneously on different physical drives. (For example, EQ2 and pagefile)

[Mav451]

Well the ideal is you use the fastest drive - the 640.
Partition it so the OS/games are on the fastest part (the very first partition created). Not sure if you should really be watching partition size vs. platter size...but I'm using 120GB OS/Game partition on my 750.

And then of course, move the page to your 320. Ideally also have it in the faster partition for the page file.

[kuyaglen]

Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition

What I consider short stroking is, to take your drive and partition it to something smaller and not use the rest of unpartitioned space so as to not have the head have to seek from the end of the primary partition to the spindle.

e.g. My 160gig Dell Raptor drive, short stroke it to 60 gigs and leave the rest of the 100 gigs of unpartitioned space alone. Thus keeping the 60 gig main partition on the outer faster areas of the drive platter and since there is no logical partition the head doesn't waste time seeking for info thats not there.

[upriverpaddler]

Yes, but you don't have to leave the extra partition empty. Use it for data storage. Your porn files will not effect your FPS if they are on another partition.

If you aren't going to use the space, then just buy a smaller 10,000 rpm drive for the same price.

[ikjadoon]

OK, OK. I think I have it:

WD6400AAKS (640GB): 150GB partition for OS, games, etc. 490GB partition for TV Recordings.
ST332062 (320GB): 5GB partition for page file. 315GB partition for TV Recordings.

A few questions

Can I enlarge a partition after it has been made? If not, should I enlarge the OS partition?

What about dual page files? One on the WD6400AAKS (in a dedicated partition) and another on the 320GB, also in a dedicated partition.

Can I make a "virtual" drive that combines both TV recording partitions from both drives?

Thanks!

~Ibrahim~

P.S. I'd buy a Raptor, but I *really* need the space. I only have 8GB left on this 320GB!

[ikjadoon]

IT DOES WORK!

Hi! (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=0&t=759070&u2=http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2821976&postcount=32)

He is running RAID,but check out those access times!

~Ibrahim~

[robman_rob]

wow 150gb os drive? my os is only 40gb and i've used only 15 with about 8 gbs of system restore

[protias]

IT DOES WORK!

Hi! (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=0&t=759070&u2=http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2821976&postcount=32)

He is running RAID,but check out those access times!

~Ibrahim~

It's a shame that the access seek time for a single drive is 4.6ms and write 5.2ms. Irregardless, it is impressive for that many drives. I wonder how he did that.

[Brahmzy]

I'm doing this with my 3 RAID0'd Raptors. The more HDDs you add to the mix, the better access times you're guaranteeing for your first, outside slice/partition of the drives. I always force my OS onto the outside of the disks on as small a partition as possible.

[DrStrangeBrew]

Irregardless

this is one of the keywords, that when heard in an office environment, is a clear signal for a bonafide bullshitter :p

PS: heh for a second I thought this thread had something to do w/stock trading

[protias]

this is one of the keywords, that when heard in an office environment, is a clear signal for a bonafide bullshitter :p

PS: heh for a second I thought this thread had something to do w/stock trading

So are you saying according to WD specs and this guy's test with Raided drives that it would be better to slower access times? Sure benchmarks are nice, but what about real world performance?

[mnewxcv]

I've never heard it called short stroking, but I do it. Lots of people partition their drives for better access.

My ideal is
physical disc 1--gaming files partition / storage partition
physical disc 2--OS partition / page file partition / storage partition

The advantages are mostly so small that they are useless.

so is your OS disk "D"? and gaming "C"?

also, good partition software? (avail at microcenter preferable)

[ikjadoon]

So are you saying according to WD specs and this guy's test with Raided drives that it would be better to slower access times? Sure benchmarks are nice, but what about real world performance?

Of course, that is the most important thing. Why go through all this hassle for nothing? Game loading times are probably most pertinent.

But, of course, such a low access time coupled with his read/write (mostly due to the RAID setup, I'm sure) has to mean something, no?

Going to purchase the 640GB today or tomorrow, nonetheless. I need a new drive, irregardless of the short-stroking.

@Brahmzy:

Do you have any real-world benches to "compare"?

~Ibrahim~

[upriverpaddler]

so is your OS disk "D"? and gaming "C"?

also, good partition software? (avail at microcenter preferable)

Yes, I happen to have XP installed on D. But you could reverse the discs if it made more sense to you. It really dosen't matter.

http://gparted-livecd.tuxfamily.org/

[Shaggy3zx]

Short-stroking in the sense of only using the beginning section of your disk does work. Try short-stroking a large raid array and you will reap the performance benefits! :)

[kuyaglen]

Yes, but you don't have to leave the extra partition empty. Use it for data storage. Your porn files will not effect your FPS if they are on another partition.

If you aren't going to use the space, then just buy a smaller 10,000 rpm drive for the same price.

I dont think your getting the idea.


Short-stroking in the sense of only using the beginning section of your disk does work. Try short-stroking a large raid array and you will reap the performance benefits! :)

[ikjadoon]

Wait, why can't I use the extra partitions for games and such? Or does that defeat the point? That is why I wanted the 150GB partition. It might be big, but it has games & the OS.

~Ibrahim~

[robman_rob]

you use the outter parts for programs you execute frequently. (games, apps, os)

you can store data you access less in the inner parts (movies, backup, songs, etc)

[ikjadoon]

you use the outter parts for programs you execute frequently. (games, apps, os)

you can store data you access less in the inner parts (movies, backup, songs, etc)

So using this logic, which would be faster:

640GB: 150GB (OS and Programs [mostly games]) + 490GB (TV Recordings)
320GB: 5GB (hidden; used for page file) + 315GB (TV Recordings)

versus

640GB: 50GB (OS and programs that won't install on other partitions) + 200GB (All other programs and some media files) + 390GB (TV Recordings)
320GB: 5GB (hidden; used for game file) + 315GB (TV Recordings)

I can add/take away a few gigabytes from other partitions, but this is basically what I want going on. Either one of these are fine, but which one would be faster? I'm inclined to think the first because I want fast access times to both games and OS, but does the OS deserve an entire partition? From other forums, I've heard the 2nd is better, so...

:confused::confused::confused:

~Ibrahim~

[upriverpaddler]

I dont think your getting the idea.Yes I am.

you use the outter parts for programs you execute frequently. (games, apps, os)

you can store data you access less in the inner parts (movies, backup, songs, etc)
This is it.

So using this logic, which would be faster?~Ibrahim~
Install your games on the physical drive opposite the OS.

[ripken204]

ive always put the OS on its own.

one reason is that if i wanted to reinstall the OS, then all of my programs will be there and i dont have to woarry about backing up games and whatever.

and i just think that OS requires the most performance.

but for your case, but the OS on the first part of one drive and the games/programs on the first part of the 2nd drive

[robman_rob]

i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?

[Mav451]

i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?

Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.

[ripken204]

Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.

i heard that if you have your os on a partition of it's own, and your programs are on another partition/drive, when you format your os partition and reinstall windows, your program will not work because of registry inconsistency, is that true?

ya it all depends on the program. most games that i have work without having to be installed. some programs work also.

[ikjadoon]

"Install your games on the physical drive opposite the OS" means this: I put my OS on the first partition of the 640GB and my games/programs on the first partition of the 320GB?

I was hoping to put my games and OS on the 640GB because it is quite a bit faster than the 320GB, but will that performance gain be naught because they are on the same drive?

Does it matter which drive has the page file, then? The one with the games or the one with the OS?

I probably won't ever reinstall my OS after this, so I'm good there.

Thank you so much for all the help, guys!

~Ibrahim~

[ripken204]

put the page file on the non OS drive

[ikjadoon]

put the page file on the non OS drive

Got it. OK, I'm almost done then. I have one minor queasy, so to speak. It is just that it feels weird that I'd put all my games on the slower drive (320GB); shouldn't they go with the OS on the faster one? In separate partitions, of course.

~Ibrahim~

[robman_rob]

Got it. OK, I'm almost done then. I have one minor queasy, so to speak. It is just that it feels weird that I'd put all my games on the slower drive (320GB); shouldn't they go with the OS on the faster one? In separate partitions, of course.

~Ibrahim~

it'll be better than having it on your physical os drive.

[ikjadoon]

OK, so this is it:

640GB: 50GB OS + 590GB TV Recordings
320GB: 5GB Page File + 200GB Apps + 115GB TV Recordings

I should make the Page File partition before the application one, right?

~Ibrahim~

[robman_rob]

yes

[ripken204]

ya that looks good

[robman_rob]

Depends on each program. So far, literally copying/pasting the Steam folder still lets it run just fine, so I know (in terms of games), that Steam is very portable. Not sure about other games or other progs that may spray your registry full of garbage though - which is the case with most software.

ya it all depends on the program. most games that i have work without having to be installed. some programs work also.

if a program doesn't work, i suppose you can just delete the program folder and reinstall it?

[ikjadoon]

Wicked monkeys. Thank you so much for all the help guys, I really appreciate it! :D

~Ibrahim~

[upriverpaddler]

Here's an old thread I posted in.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1041663

Check the link in post #7.

[kuyaglen]

Using the entire drive with different partitions of different sizes is not short stroking. Sure only making a 20 or 30 gig os drive on a 150 gig raptor leaves 130-120 gigs of unallocated space but its for the benefit of improved performance of data intensive tasks.

The partitioning arrangement that ikjadoon proposed seems ideal for using the entire drive, but its not short stroking. Though I'd suggest a smaller OS part and a larger page part

[upriverpaddler]

...130-120 gigs of unallocated space but its for the benefit of improved performance of data intensive tasks.Explain how leaving the space unallocated is more of a benefit than storing data that will not be accessed during the "data intensive tasks". Either way, the arm will never go there. Maybe I'm missing something.

[ripken204]

and why cant you just make the extra space into storage that you will rarely use?
the head wont move there if you arnt using anything in that partition.

[dcds1]

To gain the most performance you need to have atleast 3 drives. One drive for OS and storage. One drive for your games. and then the last drive for your paging file. On the drive with your paging file have a 8G partition set up at the begining for the paging file.

I use to have it set up 36G raptor with 8G partion with pagefile and OS on 2nd partion. Then two 74G raptors in raid 0 for my games. When I reformated and loaded everything a couplel of weeks ago went to this set up. Lost a little speed on transfering the game data but increased overall speed of the computer according to SiSoft and Sysmark.

[ikjadoon]

Hmmm...Just had a confusion attack, lol.

So, will there be a real-world performance gain? I'd rather not go through all this to gain a few MB/s in some random benchmark and find everything else the same. I'll probably try it nonetheless.

That is what I'd been thinking for the past few days, but I just can't afford a 3rd drive, though it would make life much more simpler.

How come it is not short-stroking? Those TV Recordings on the 640GB: if I'm lucky, one file (4.5GB approximate size) is accessed a day. But all the other time, it should be "idle" in that partition.

Here is what I uneasiness stems from:

1. My games are on the slow hard drive.
2. I have both my games and page file on the same hard drive.

I guess there is no way to fix this without a 3rd drive?

~Ibrahim~

[protias]

To gain the most performance you need to have atleast 3 drives. One drive for OS and storage. One drive for your games. and then the last drive for your paging file. On the drive with your paging file have a 8G partition set up at the begining for the paging file.

I use to have it set up 36G raptor with 8G partion with pagefile and OS on 2nd partion. Then two 74G raptors in raid 0 for my games. When I reformated and loaded everything a couplel of weeks ago went to this set up. Lost a little speed on transfering the game data but increased overall speed of the computer according to SiSoft and Sysmark.

An 8GB page file. I'm sorry but no, that is just not needed. A 2GB page file isn't even used for most systems. Why? Because most people have the sense to have enough RAM. What does a page file have to do with "short stroking?"

[upriverpaddler]

An 8GB page file. I'm sorry but no, that is just not needed. A 2GB page file isn't even used for most systems. Why? Because most people have the sense to have enough RAM. What does a page file have to do with "short stroking?"

With 2 gigs of RAM, EQ2 would wreak havoc on a page file. 2 gigs of page file was minimum for EQ2. When I was playing was when I found out about putting the page file on its own partition. One reason was to make it easier to wipe out and start fresh, and the other so that the system could access the game and the page file independently. But EQ2 is the only application where I ever read that this was needed.

Yes. Ibrahim, no matter how you slice it, your gains will be minimal at best.

[ikjadoon]

An 8GB page file. I'm sorry but no, that is just not needed. A 2GB page file isn't even used for most systems. Why? Because most people have the sense to have enough RAM. What does a page file have to do with "short stroking?"

My page file is about 3,067MB, so 3GB or so. I made it 5GB because it is a nice, even number. It has to do with short-stroking because you actually short-stroke the page file itself by putting it in its own partition.

Anyone know the answers to the issues in my previous post? Because if not, I'm about to purchase the drive.


1. My games are on the slow hard drive.
2. I have both my games and page file on the same hard drive.

I guess there is no way to fix this without a 3rd drive?



~Ibrahim~

[kuyaglen]

Explain how leaving the space unallocated is more of a benefit than storing data that will not be accessed during the "data intensive tasks". Either way, the arm will never go there. Maybe I'm missing something.

Short Stroking is not for the benefit of data storage, its for the benefit of data access. Its for speed not capacity.


and why cant you just make the extra space into storage that you will rarely use?
the head wont move there if you arnt using anything in that partition.

The head does move there. Even if your not actively seeking data on that partition, windows still sees it and continually sees it with background processes, virus scanners, caching and other file system processes.

Short stroking is generally not used in the soho desktop market. Its traditionally used in the realm of data centers and the like, where every and any bit of performance is needed with dis-regard for price. Its like spending tens of thousands of dollars on a formula 1 car, just for lighter bolts and screws.

[ikjadoon]

Really? Does anyone have any proof of this? It sounds logical, but wouldn't there still be a performance increase, even if there is data there?

~Ibrahim~

[Ziggy!talon]

raid:0 works way better...

i have 3 20gb 7200/8mb drives in raid:0, it flys....windows loads in less than 20 seconds, installing programs, copying from the array, it's incredibly fast...

[protias]

raid:0 works way better...

i have 3 20gb 7200/8mb drives in raid:0, it flys....windows loads in less than 20 seconds, installing programs, copying from the array, it's incredibly fast...

Not this discussion again.... :mad: :(

[ikjadoon]

Not this discussion again.... :mad: :(

QFT. I don't have the money for RAID, so let's not get off topic.

~Ibrahim~

[Ziggy!talon]

QFT. I don't have the money for RAID, so let's not get off topic.

~Ibrahim~


a decent controller card can be had for like 50 bucks tops....

if you want a fast OS/games partition, pick up about 4 40GB 7200.8mb hard drives, install your OS and games on your new 160GB array that can read/write at 140MB/s with awesome access times and your golden.

[protias]

a decent controller card can be had for like 50 bucks tops....

if you want a fast OS/games partition, pick up about 4 40GB 7200.8mb hard drives, install your OS and games on your new 160GB array that can read/write at 140MB/s with awesome access times and your golden.

What controller is that?

And why would you go with 7200.8 drives when .11 are out? Besides, this thread is about "short stroking," not transfer speeds.

[Ziggy!talon]

What controller is that?

And why would you go with 7200.8 drives when .11 are out? Besides, this thread is about "short stroking," not transfer speeds.


because i was trying to keep things cheap for you...

and a raid:0 array would be quicker than any short stroking setup period. in access and transfer speeds..

oh and pretty much any hardware based controller card out there.... they start at like 30-40 bucks....

[ikjadoon]

a decent controller card can be had for like 50 bucks tops....

if you want a fast OS/games partition, pick up about 4 40GB 7200.8mb hard drives, install your OS and games on your new 160GB array that can read/write at 140MB/s with awesome access times and your golden.

I was under the impression that RAID 0 did not lower access times; actually it had a slight tendency to increase them?

Now instead of one drive failing, I have the chance of four drives failing. Also, I am purchasing a 640GB for a reason: I really need the space! I don't want to sound rude or stubborn, but I've already researched the pros and cons of having a RAID setup. Thanks, though.

~Ibrahim~

[protias]

because i was trying to keep things cheap for you...

and a raid:0 array would be quicker than any short stroking setup period. in access and transfer speeds..

oh and pretty much any hardware based controller card out there.... they start at like 30-40 bucks....

Those are software based controllers. You might as well use the feature on the motherboard then. Again, transfer speeds do not equal access times. Haven't we already discussed this?

[Overrider]

Matrix RAID.

If you have an intel RAID controller you can set up two different configurations over one subset of physical discs.

I have 3 x 7200.11, 500GB. I sliced out the first 25GB of all 3 drives and configured them in one 75GB RAID0 array, I then took the remaining space and configured it for RAID5. 900 GB or so of fully redundant storage space and triple disk RAID0 performance on SATA2 for Windows and games.

Best of both worlds and as an added benefit you can image windows to the RAID5 partition. You lose a drive, pop in a new one, boot from cd, rebuild your RAID0 from the image and away you go. No data lost and you have an OS install exactly how you like it. The raid controller was onboard my Maximus Formula and I got the drives for 90$ each from NCIX.

[protias]

Matrix RAID.

If you have an intel RAID controller you can set up two different configurations over one subset of physical discs.

I have 3 x 7200.11, 500GB. I sliced out the first 25GB of all 3 drives and configured them in one 75GB RAID0 array, I then took the remaining space and configured it for RAID5. 900 GB or so of fully redundant storage space and triple disk RAID0 performance on SATA2 for Windows and games.

Best of both worlds and as an added benefit you can image windows to the RAID5 partition. You lose a drive, pop in a new one, boot from cd, rebuild your RAID0 from the image and away you go. No data lost and you have an OS install exactly how you like it. The raid controller was onboard my Maximus Formula and I got the drives for 90$ each from NCIX.

I know for a fact the R5 array will be ungodly slow doing that (compared to using separate disks for for R5 and separate disks for R0). The only thing I don't know is, if you lose the R0 array, if it will take out the R5. I don't think it will, but I'm not 100% sure as you are using the same disks.

[Megalomaniac]

physically, they are the same drives, but according to intel, logically, they are seen as separate entities.
this is one of the big selling points of matrix raid. It is really truely redundant.

If theory, it sounds awesome.
You partition the drive any which way you want..
now here the unspoken down side....

the raid 0 and raid 5 are on the same physical disks.. so regardless of anything, that WILL slow down the raid 0 access times. even if you only have media files and rarely use them. Windows still runs background check and might index them. Anti virus will scan them. a defrag will defrag them... there are a few programs out there that will slow you down, and some, simply run in the background. it only takes one request for data on that Raid 5 to throw that whole concept into the toilet.

[ikjadoon]

Right. I've heard about Matrix RAID, but no Intel chipset. :(

~Ibrahim~

[DDuckMan]

How do you know for sure where your partition(s) are on the physical disc? If I set up a RAID 0 array (Adaptec card), do I just set up a partition or volume that is smaller than the total size of the logical drive/array? Will the first or only partition/volume always be on the outer portion of the disc?

[robman_rob]

Will the first or only partition/volume always be on the outer portion of the disc?

yes

[ikjadoon]

Short-stroked 640GB with a 50GB OS partition. Seems very responsive, but that might be due to the reformat; :D. Still looking for an application that can benchmark PARTITIONS, not complete drives to test results.....

~Ibrahim~

[jdyoung75]

An interesting read. For my next system I'm playing around with the following idea:

1. Single fusionio solid state drive with 0.1ms access times and 800MBs read for OS (no need to partition with SSDs since performance is the same across the entire drive)

2. 6x1TB drives in a Intel matrix RAID with the fastest 10% sliced off in RAID0 for apps and games (i.e. 600GB drive with ~400-500MBs read and ~6-7ms access times), and remaining 90% in a RAID10 for backup of RAID0 partition, backup of SSD, movies, music, data storage, etc, (i.e. 5.4TB drive with ~200MBs read and ~12-14ms access times).

3. 8GB of RAM and disable page file so the OS isn't constantly writing stuff from RAM to the hard drive

The thought is that the SSD will be added so that the OS sits on its own drive. Access time is much more important than sustained reads/writes for the OS, and SSDs are an order of magnitude better (0.1ms vs 6-14ms). Also, the OS constantly accesses the hard drive, even while using an app or playing a game, so you want those concurrent events happening on different spindles. If the OS and apps/games are on the same array, then the spindle is going to jump back and forth on the drive to read data for the app/game and for the OS. While the same could theoretically happen with the RAID0 and RAID10 array, the number of times the RAID0 and RAID10 data will be accessed at the same time will be VERY limited, so I'll be able to realize the access time and throughput performance of my RAID0 array almost all the time.

BTW - to the person who isn't quite sure if short stroking / slicing / partioning your hard drive makes a difference, you're crazy. For years everyone has bought 150GB Raptor hard drives because they are fast (~7ms access times versus ~12-14ms for standard hard drives, ~75MBs reads). These days you can purchase any of the latest 1TB drives which have better throughput than the Raptors (~80-90MBs reads), through they have slower access times (~12-14ms). BUT if you short stroke / slice / partition off the fastest 15% of the drives, you'll have a 150GB hard drive (same as Raptor) but with better throughput AND access times (~6-7ms access times, ~100-120MBs reads). Not to mention you will have a quieter hard drive, it will cost less money, and you'll have a bonus 850GB partition that you can use for data storage and backup.

[ikjadoon]

Sounds nice. But you might want to look into those new 300GB VelociRaptor's out, they do WORK on sequential read/writes.

~Ibrahim~