• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Serillel?

Y

Yoblad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
1,060
my mobo came with a serillel adapter for running an ide drive on the sata channel. Quesion: is ide>serillel the same as a SATA drive in terms of performance?
 
Originally posted by Yoblad
my mobo came with a serillel adapter for running an ide drive on the sata channel. Quesion: is ide>serillel the same as a SATA drive in terms of performance?
Click to expand...


Almost all SATA drives use a IDE -> Serial bridge. Therefore, it is pretty much the exact same thing. The only exception to this that I know of, is the new Segate 7200.7 SATA drives. They actually use a native SATA controller.

SuperG
 
I transfer a lot of huge files, sometimes on the same system (this is a secondary file server) and since I'm picking up a second identical sized drive anyway I figure it couldn't hurt to get some extra performance. How do I normally partition?

6GB for Windows
20GB for FTP server
1.5GB swap partition
rest for data.
 
Originally posted by Yoblad
I transfer a lot of huge files, sometimes on the same system (this is a secondary file server) and since I'm picking up a second identical sized drive anyway I figure it couldn't hurt to get some extra performance. How do I normally partition?

6GB for Windows
20GB for FTP server
1.5GB swap partition
rest for data.
Click to expand...
your swap partition yeilds no real performance benefits.... Would have to be a different drive to see anything noticeable..
 
Optimizing through Partitioning

1st Click Here

That is a representaion of Zoned Bit Recording, your Partition order starts at the outer edge and works inward (most people know this of course, but you can never tell who is watching :p )

Since the drive spins at the same speed constantly there are some basic access attributes that would occur if the head\arm doesnt jump partitions to access a different part of the disk

Dark Blue, this area will have the highest density of data passing under the head for the given speed, and thus will have the best sustained transfer rate, however if during a seek (where it is jumping tracks) it misses, it has to wait for the sector to come all the way around again, this is called latency, and the closer to the outer edge the greater the latency.

The opposite is true of the inside tracks in Red, they would have the slowest sustained transfer but the missed sector would come around faster (there being fewer sectors) and so it has the lowest latency

Now if each color band was a partition any data on that partition would have to be contained to a much smaller area, so regardless of how fragmented it was, the arm and head only have to move through a few degrees of arc to seek it, whereas a larger partition (say dark blue through green) might have a part of single file on the outside track (dark blue) and more of it located in towards the green, several degrees more the arm has to move to seek the track(s) and of course any miss with the latency of waiting for it to come around again.

If you picture those basic factors and match the type file being accessed to it you have optimized your disk (seek, latency, sustained transfer rate) that also goes along way towards explaining why keeping a HDD defragmented helps so much
and of course partitions specialized to contain different types of data fragment differently, some barely at all, others (like P2P) alot, but if they are contained, defragmenting them goes faster
Fragmentation and Defragmentation

big contigious files that just need to be accessed once and transfered will do best on the outside edge (or as close to that as possibel) having the highest sustained transfer rate

Random Reads and Writes of samll files would do better in the Red \Yellow zone where the latency is the least

Swapfiles truely come into their own in a workstation where typically large files are being manipulated in realtime (graphics)
and they are generally located at the outside edge of the disk
review Virtual Memory in XP

so far all my links have been to the PCGuide HardDrive Section (its the one repeated as Storagereview's reference section)
But Id also highly recommend you read As the Disk Spins @ LostCircuits as it covers all of this much more comprehensively and additional nuances (like queing, command overhead ect)

also review these basic terms of performance metrics
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/perf/spec/pos.htm

Access Time = Command Overhead Time + Seek Time + Settle Time + Latency
 
^^... I thought we discussed the ear beating already.... :p

btw. What do you use to archive your links? Surely you dont just use favorites... If you do your one patient man.
 
Originally posted by SKiTLz
^^... I thought we discussed the ear beating already.... :p

btw. What do you use to archive your links? Surely you dont just use favorites... If you do your one patient man.
Click to expand...

indeed we did :p

I have a mind like a steel trap :rolleyes: (a very rusty steel trap)
that and a heirarchy of folders in favorites

like say Hardware> HDD > RAID > RAID Performance > Benchmarks > SATA 64bit > http://www.tweakers.net/reviews/400

I pulled over half those off google with the right query, though they are also bookmarked, it was faster
 
hmmm interestsing,
cant put it to use today but will be able to eventually
(its downloaded and archived)
not currently running a "server" or even what would be properly called a LAN currently,
but will eventually have a true LAN segment that is connected to the internet

one good link deserves another
AM-Deadlink (freeware)
 
some bloody nice tools their... Cheers :D

We should have a monthly link swap... haha
 
Originally posted by SKiTLz
your swap partition yeilds no real performance benefits.... Would have to be a different drive to see anything noticeable..
Click to expand...
strange...I always thought that lowered cpu stress and helped keep my swap from getting fragmented. Oh well, I guess I'll stop doing that if I don't have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top