one SSD to another SSD? or one HDD to a SSD?The highest i have seen in real world performance is about 78Mb/s, trying to copy a simple file from 1 drive to another and end up with speeds around 60-75Mb/s.... whats up with all these numbers?
when you are doing a file transfer inside windows, you will be capped. period. it does not matter how fast your device is.
The copy is read off the source and the written into ram. Then it is written from ram onto the destination disk.
this is the reason for programs such as total commander and whatnot.
the write buffer is the reason for the slow copy speed. the only way around it is to use certain versions of linux (of which i am not familiar, so dont ask) or to use dedicated hardware.
win7 will not write fast enough. it is a limitation of the OS, not the gear.
you guys are looking at the wrong thing. Yes performance is variable with different levels of fill. Yes performance changes once steady state is reached.
NO That is not your problem!
cmon storage gurus, someone should have stepped in with this a LONG time ago. like post number 2.
How do i check? the drivers butters? Im using IRST on both xp and 7. Tried for hours to find out anything about getting the old microsoft ahci driver for my chipset but im unable to track it down. Could be that the IRST drivers are missing a component on XP or some sort.here is a relevant tool and thread:
Also, XP vs Windows 7, have you checked the driver on XP vs. 7? Not sure, but it is plausible that some of the performance difference is from a generic HDD driver from 2003 or earlier in xp, vs an updated win7 driver.
You are correct!.... its an issue with XP and not the drives. How hard is it to see that for you guys? jesus
No, Computurd, you are wrong. dek8's problem is XP's driver. With a decent (non-constipated) driver, XP has good inter-drive file transfer performance. [The add-ons you mentioned only improve on intra-drive transfers (by using a larger internal buffer, and reducing the amount of head-thrashing).]dek my friend, the answer has been handed to you on a golden platter. Google around a bit my friend and you will see.
there are a number of file transfer programs that fix this. ...
This doesnt sound like helping much. You merely have him chasing something he will never acquire.I have not pursued this, and have no need/plans to do so. But, as I said earlier, I hope you succeed.
for future reference OP, if your question changes, you should probably either A) start a new thread or B) state somewhere in the body of the thread, not change the first post. anyone who is going to try to understand this now is just gonna beI even run ATTO and i get numbers in the 400-550Mb/s region, both Read and Write. When do i actually get this speed when working in windows? My system can read and write it but my drive is not able to write at those speeds when im actually copying a file? whats the deal? What about actual file transfers from and to the disk? How can i see this when i work on a system?.
Lesson: The first, and most important, step in "solving" a problem, is precisely identifying just exactly what the problem is.This doesnt sound like helping much. You merely have him chasing something he will never acquire.
No; not only do I not know "which driver", but, as I said, I don't even know that it exists. Consider: Who is both 1)capable of producing, and 2)motivated to do so, an SSD-friendly driver, for an end-of-life'd operating system? (I'm not dumping on you for wanting to use XP; I use XP64 myself on one PC.)i understand.... and what driver do you need? i mean, do you know which driver it is?
Not quite. When it appeared that you had demonstrated significant performance differences, for your SSD, where the single variable was WinXP vs Win7, I got curious.So let me get this straight clem.
You went on to test your SSD on XP after u read my benchmarks, right? You run p67? And your findings was equal to mine...
Good Lord, you mean to say you're still running XP? *facepalm* Why!?its just reverting back to irst.
and i thought about getting the 60gb version to raid 2 of them up and beat the 120, i wont swap to 7, if i could get msahci running and nothing would change then i will just let it be. guys over at ocz are basically saying the same things, well, 1 guy.
i even believe if i raid them on this setup i wont notice much more improvement, its like something is stuck on this speed.
Wow OP.Either you are...
It blows my mind thinking that there are people out there who still think XP is somehow better/faster/"less bloated" than Windows 7.Wow OP.
Either way, you're trying to use a 10 year old OS with new hardware that it was never designed for. End of retail sales of Windows XP ended in 2008, so manufacturers have no reason to write drivers for it any longer, if you have issues, they're just going to tell you the OS isn't supported and to upgrade. People are giving you the answers, you're just choosing to ignore them.