Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2242 > unrolled thread

IDE or AHCI ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  IDE or AHCI ? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2012-01-03 12:30 -0600
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-03 21:05 +0000
      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "arno fucker" <af@arnofucker.com> - 2012-01-04 12:41 +1100
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:58 +1100
    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-04 00:07 -0500
      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 08:53 +0100
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 20:32 +1100
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 14:44 +0100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:37 +1100
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-04 22:56 +0100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 09:48 +1100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Ed Light <nobody@nobody.there> - 2012-01-04 21:40 -0800
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-05 05:37 +0000
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:37 +1100
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-04 09:29 -0500
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-01-04 16:04 +0100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:19 +0000
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-04 23:14 +0100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-05 08:47 +0000
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:51 +1100
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:16 +0000
          Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 07:41 +1100
            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-05 14:44 -0500
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 17:35 +1100
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-07 00:05 +1100
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-06 20:04 +0000
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-06 21:13 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net> - 2012-01-06 20:42 -0600
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-07 13:48 +0100
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-07 14:09 +0000
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-07 14:36 +0000
                          Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 02:11 +1100
                            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 12:06 +0000
                              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-09 16:27 +0000
                                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 17:36 +0000
                                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 17:41 +0000
                                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-09 19:07 +0000
                                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:12 +0100
                                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-09 21:00 +0000
                              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:31 -0500
                          Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-07 17:10 +0100
                            Re: IDE or AHCI ? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2012-01-10 14:18 +0000
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:23 -0500
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-09 16:30 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:16 +0100
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net> - 2012-01-09 17:13 -0600
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 08:11 +1100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 01:23 +1100
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 06:43 +1100
                        Re: IDE or AHCI ? JW <none@dev.null> - 2012-01-09 05:23 -0500
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 10:24 -0500
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 09:34 +1100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 20:04 -0500
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 15:33 +1100
              Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-06 09:48 +0000
                Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-09 11:35 -0500
                  Re: IDE or AHCI ? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-09 20:23 +0100
                    Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-10 11:31 +0000
                      Re: IDE or AHCI ? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-01-20 06:54 -0500
        Re: IDE or AHCI ? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-04 19:14 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#2322

On 07/01/12 15:36, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el artículo<SYCdnWGYj8SoopXSnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  escribió:
>
>> The easiest uptime records to find on the net are for Novell Netware
>> machines running for over six years:
>
> Not difficult for them to achieve, not being internet-facing and thus
> not having to have security updates applied every ten minutes.
>

Absolutely.  When you don't need to update the kernel or other critical 
software, then there is no need for downtime other than because of power 
cuts, hardware issues, or just because you want to move things around. 
I had a Windows NT 4.0 server that was never updated, never crashed 
(other than for hardware problems on the power supply), and was never 
rebooted except in connection with power cuts or moving it physically. 
It was in service for about 10 years before the hardware finally gave up 
(though for the last few years the load was very low).

> I installed several Netware networks years ago running on Token Ring.
> This was in the days when Ethernet was still installed using thin coax
> cable.
>
> I remember a story - possibly urban myth - about a company which called
> out a consultancy to fix a Netware server which had gone down.  The firm
> had ground to a halt as no-one could get any work done. The problem was
> no-one knew where it was; it had been up and running so long. They
> eventually found it behind a walled-in space which had been created
> during building modifications.
>

I heard it was at a university.  But I also suspect it is an urban myth 
- though not an unrealistic one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2361

In article <zqidnervSLDy85XSnZ2dnUVZ7rmdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes

>I heard it was at a university.  But I also suspect it is an urban myth 
>- though not an unrealistic one.

You're right.

<http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010409S0001>

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovere
d_after/>

-- 
(\__/)   
(='.'=) 
(")_(")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2344

On 06/01/2012 3:04 PM, Arno wrote:
> Krypsis<krypsis@optusnet.com.au>  wrote:
>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends
>> of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up
>> in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even
>> suspending or hibernating.
>
> Windows was never intended as a server OS. It still shows.
> There is a lot that cannot be done on Windows without a shurdown.
> Machines get slower and slower with uptime. I know a few people
> that administrate Windows servers, and they usually do scheduled
> reboots every 30 days or so.
>
> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
> 400 days, then I replaced the kernel. No issues at that
> time despite constant i/o and network load during the day.
> This experience is fairly typical. Still, for my desktop system
> I shut down Linux as well. Hibernating is at the very least a
> security risk and basically unneccessary. I do the same as you,
> 1-2 minutes are not hard to pass.

Linux is just as bad these days, at least desktop versions, like Ubuntu. 
There's a constant barrage of updates, most don't require a reboot, but 
whenever there's a new kernel update, that does require a reboot. And 
there seems to be a kernel update every two weeks nowadays. It's damn 
near impossible to keep Linux running constantly for more than a week 
now without ignoring updates.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2346

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 3:04 PM, Arno wrote:
>> Krypsis<krypsis@optusnet.com.au>  wrote:
>>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends
>>> of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up
>>> in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even
>>> suspending or hibernating.
>>
>> Windows was never intended as a server OS. It still shows.
>> There is a lot that cannot be done on Windows without a shurdown.
>> Machines get slower and slower with uptime. I know a few people
>> that administrate Windows servers, and they usually do scheduled
>> reboots every 30 days or so.
>>
>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>> 400 days, then I replaced the kernel. No issues at that
>> time despite constant i/o and network load during the day.
>> This experience is fairly typical. Still, for my desktop system
>> I shut down Linux as well. Hibernating is at the very least a
>> security risk and basically unneccessary. I do the same as you,
>> 1-2 minutes are not hard to pass.

> Linux is just as bad these days, at least desktop versions, like Ubuntu. 
> There's a constant barrage of updates, most don't require a reboot, but 
> whenever there's a new kernel update, that does require a reboot. And 
> there seems to be a kernel update every two weeks nowadays. It's damn 
> near impossible to keep Linux running constantly for more than a week 
> now without ignoring updates.

My guess is thet these vendors think they have to do it this 
way in order to keep their business. Go to Debian stable, 
update automatically only from the security repo. This solves 
the issue.

Of course if you want the colorful lights on your desktop (i.e. 
the broken MS interface or one of its clones), forget about 
stability.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2353

On 09/01/12 17:23, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 3:04 PM, Arno wrote:
>> Krypsis<krypsis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends
>>> of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up
>>> in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even
>>> suspending or hibernating.
>>
>> Windows was never intended as a server OS. It still shows.
>> There is a lot that cannot be done on Windows without a shurdown.
>> Machines get slower and slower with uptime. I know a few people
>> that administrate Windows servers, and they usually do scheduled
>> reboots every 30 days or so.
>>
>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>> 400 days, then I replaced the kernel. No issues at that
>> time despite constant i/o and network load during the day.
>> This experience is fairly typical. Still, for my desktop system
>> I shut down Linux as well. Hibernating is at the very least a
>> security risk and basically unneccessary. I do the same as you,
>> 1-2 minutes are not hard to pass.
>
> Linux is just as bad these days, at least desktop versions, like Ubuntu.
> There's a constant barrage of updates, most don't require a reboot, but
> whenever there's a new kernel update, that does require a reboot. And
> there seems to be a kernel update every two weeks nowadays. It's damn
> near impossible to keep Linux running constantly for more than a week
> now without ignoring updates.
>
> Yousuf Khan

It depends on how much you want to update (if you are a normal user on a 
reasonably safe network, you don't need to be too paranoid about 
security updates), and what you define as "uptime".  Most updates don't 
lead to a reboot, but many mean you have to re-start a particular 
program (such as your browser), or to log out and in (such as to update 
your desktop or X).  Depending on how you use the machine, you may view 
this as being as bad as a reboot, or just a minor inconvenience.

For server systems, most updates only lead to a restart of the services 
being updated - though again, that may be as bad as a reboot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2357

On 01/09/2012 10:23 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 3:04 PM, Arno wrote:
>> Krypsis<krypsis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown. Friends
>>> of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up
>>> in knots. Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even
>>> suspending or hibernating.
>>
>> Windows was never intended as a server OS. It still shows.
>> There is a lot that cannot be done on Windows without a shurdown.
>> Machines get slower and slower with uptime. I know a few people
>> that administrate Windows servers, and they usually do scheduled
>> reboots every 30 days or so.
>>
>> Longest uptime I had with with Linux server/firewall box was
>> 400 days, then I replaced the kernel. No issues at that
>> time despite constant i/o and network load during the day.
>> This experience is fairly typical. Still, for my desktop system
>> I shut down Linux as well. Hibernating is at the very least a
>> security risk and basically unneccessary. I do the same as you,
>> 1-2 minutes are not hard to pass.
>
> Linux is just as bad these days, at least desktop versions, like Ubuntu.
> There's a constant barrage of updates, most don't require a reboot, but
> whenever there's a new kernel update, that does require a reboot. And
> there seems to be a kernel update every two weeks nowadays. It's damn
> near impossible to keep Linux running constantly for more than a week
> now without ignoring updates.
>
> Yousuf Khan

My experience has been different.  I use MythTV running on Linux, and I 
keep that machine running for months at a time.  But it's nearly a 
dedicated machine (it also acts as a DHCP server, but that's not much of 
a load), and not used for Internet access.

It all depends what you're trying to accomplish which platform(s) will suit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2301

Krypsis wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>> David Brown wrote

>>>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise
>>>>>> head movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when
>>>>>> the OS wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to
>>>>>> filesystem journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows
>>>>>> much either - after all, it only applies when you do more than
>>>>>> one thing at a time.

>>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

>>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

>>>> Not very dramatically tho.

>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the
>>>>> disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.

>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I
>>> don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking
>>> about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the
>>> disk queue at any given time.

>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

>>> This normally happens during boot-up time,

>> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
>> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
>> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
>> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
>> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

> I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity when I'm not using the computer.

Even if you do, you can set it to hibernate or suspend when that
happens so you dont get a full boot when you turn it on again,
and so wont see that disk activity when you turn it on again.

> I turn the power off at the UPS but not at the wall socket.

Why waste the power that the UPS uses ?

> Waiting for a bootup is no great pain.

Its even less of a pain if you set it to hibernate or suspend.

> I walk past my computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things and by the time I have finished that, the beast is 
> up and ready.

He was talking about obsessing about the disk activity.

> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown.

More fool you.

> Friends of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up in knots.

They dont have a clue about how to use it.

> Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even suspending or hibernating.

But usually doesnt for various reasons.

>> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you 
>> arent using the system.

>>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the
>>> stratosphere at any time.

>> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

>>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time,and you got major delays.

>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

> You don't know what you're talking about.

Everyone can see for themselves who doesnt know what they are talking about, child.

> I have modern fast seeking drives in all my computers bar my Powermac and they ALL bog down when accessed by multiple 
> programs at the same time.

How odd that mine dont. I dont even bother to have a separate PVR anymore
and I bet you couldnt even work out when its recording in a proper double blind
trial with not being allowed to use the task manager to see whats running etc.

> I suggest you do a few simple experiments to prove this to yourself.

Been doing that since before you were even born thanks child.

> Do you reckon the seek limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so popular in applications 
> where speed is paramount?

Taint the SEEK speed thats the reason for that, child. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2316

On 7/01/2012 8:11 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Krypsis wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>>> David Brown wrote
>
>>>>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise
>>>>>>> head movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as when
>>>>>>> the OS wants to enforce a particular order (for transactions to
>>>>>>> filesystem journals, for example). And NCQ doesn't help windows
>>>>>>> much either - after all, it only applies when you do more than
>>>>>>> one thing at a time.
>
>>>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.
>
>>>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.
>
>>>>> Not very dramatically tho.
>
>>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.
>
>>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.
>
>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the
>>>>>> disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.
>
>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>
>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I
>>>> don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking
>>>> about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the
>>>> disk queue at any given time.
>
>>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.
>
>>>> This normally happens during boot-up time,
>
>>> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
>>> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
>>> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
>>> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
>>> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.
>
>> I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity when I'm not using the computer.
>
> Even if you do, you can set it to hibernate or suspend when that
> happens so you dont get a full boot when you turn it on again,
> and so wont see that disk activity when you turn it on again.

If it is hibernated, a memory image is stored on the hard disk. Ergo, 
there needs to be disk activity to restore said image to RAM.

In suspend mode, the computer goes into a low power mode but does not 
save data. A power outage whilst in this state will result in data loss. 
 From Vista onwards, suspend mode will become hibernate on laptops after 
3 hours of inactivity (default time).

 From my experience, hibernate and suspend, on Windows, is not reliable.
>
>> I turn the power off at the UPS but not at the wall socket.
>
> Why waste the power that the UPS uses ?

Because my modem and router also run from it and others in my household 
use them wirelessly.
>
>> Waiting for a bootup is no great pain.
>
> Its even less of a pain if you set it to hibernate or suspend.

How much of a pain is it to press one (1) button and enter one (1) 
password???
>
>> I walk past my computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things and by the time I have finished that, the beast is
>> up and ready.
>
> He was talking about obsessing about the disk activity.

I was talking about turning off versus hibernate/suspend.
>
>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown.
>
> More fool you.

You need to get out more.
>
>> Friends of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up in knots.
>
> They dont have a clue about how to use it.
>
>> Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even suspending or hibernating.
>
> But usually doesnt for various reasons.

Yes, people like me turn them off for various reasons, ie. to save on 
power when not in use. Windows, on the other hand, can't go the distance 
without a regular reboot.
>
>>> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you
>>> arent using the system.
>
>>>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the
>>>> stratosphere at any time.
>
>>> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.
>
>>>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time,and you got major delays.
>
>>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.
>
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves who doesnt know what they are talking about, child.

True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.
>
>> I have modern fast seeking drives in all my computers bar my Powermac and they ALL bog down when accessed by multiple
>> programs at the same time.
>
> How odd that mine dont. I dont even bother to have a separate PVR anymore
> and I bet you couldnt even work out when its recording in a proper double blind
> trial with not being allowed to use the task manager to see whats running etc.

As if I care! I don't even bother with a PVR.
>
>> I suggest you do a few simple experiments to prove this to yourself.
>
> Been doing that since before you were even born thanks child.

At 74 years of age, it's a fair guess that I was born a rather long time 
before you. Given the childish nature of your arguments, it's fairly 
obvious who is the child here.
>
>> Do you reckon the seek limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so popular in applications
>> where speed is paramount?
>
> Taint the SEEK speed thats the reason for that, child.
>
It is ONE of the reasons but not the only one.
>


-- 

Krypsis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2326

Krypsis wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Krypsis wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>>>> David Brown wrote

>>>>>>>> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has
>>>>>>>> always had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise
>>>>>>>> head movement. It will sometimes make things worse, such as
>>>>>>>> when the OS wants to enforce a particular order (for
>>>>>>>> transactions to filesystem journals, for example). And NCQ
>>>>>>>> doesn't help windows much either - after all, it only applies
>>>>>>>> when you do more than one thing at a time.

>>>>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

>>>>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

>>>>>> Not very dramatically tho.

>>>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

>>>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

>>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on
>>>>>>> the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.

>>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

>>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 
>>>>> 1.10, but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given 
>>>>> time.

>>>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

>>>>> This normally happens during boot-up time,

>>>> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
>>>> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
>>>> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
>>>> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
>>>> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

>>> I turn my computers off when not in use. No point using electricity
>>> when I'm not using the computer.

>> Even if you do, you can set it to hibernate or suspend when that
>> happens so you dont get a full boot when you turn it on again,
>> and so wont see that disk activity when you turn it on again.

> If it is hibernated, a memory image is stored on the hard disk.

Yes, but you dont get lots of different processes all attempting
drive access simultanously, so you dont get the problem he was
clearly talking about. You just have ONE process restoring the
ram contents from the ONE file on the hard drive, and reading
that linearly too.

> Ergo, there needs to be disk activity to restore said image to RAM.

But NOT a number of different processes competing for access to the drive.

> In suspend mode, the computer goes into a low power mode but does not save data. A power outage whilst in this state 
> will result in data loss.

Not with a laptop.

> From Vista onwards, suspend mode will become hibernate on laptops after 3 hours of inactivity (default time).

No reason why you have to accept the default setting.

> From my experience, hibernate and suspend, on Windows, is not reliable.

You're wrong, as always.

The most you have to do is an occassional full reboot every month or few
depending on how the machine is used, as Win cant go forever without a full reboot.

>>> I turn the power off at the UPS but not at the wall socket.

>> Why waste the power that the UPS uses ?

> Because my modem and router also run from it and others in my household use them wirelessly.

>>> Waiting for a bootup is no great pain.

>> Its even less of a pain if you set it to hibernate or suspend.

> How much of a pain is it to press one (1) button and enter one (1) password???

There is a much longer wait till its performing at full speed again.

>>> I walk past my computer, hit a few buttons, do a few other things
>>> and by the time I have finished that, the beast is up and ready.

>> He was talking about obsessing about the disk activity.

> I was talking about turning off versus hibernate/suspend.

And ignoring his complaint about seeing lots of processes competing for
drive access with a full reboot which you dont bet with hibernate and suspend.

>>> I've yet to see Windows last months without a complete shutdown.

>> More fool you.

> You need to get out more.

Nope, I use systems like that all the time thanks child.

>>> Friends of mine are forced to reboot often because Windows gets itself tied up in knots.

>> They dont have a clue about how to use it.

>>> Linux, on the other hand, can go for years without even suspending or hibernating.

>> But usually doesnt for various reasons.

> Yes, people like me turn them off for various reasons, ie. to save on power when not in use.

Thats just one way of saving power.

> Windows, on the other hand, can't go the distance without a regular reboot.

And that is MUCH less often than every time you stop using the PC.

>>>> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you 
>>>> arent using the system.

>>>>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the
>>>>> stratosphere at any time.

>>>> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

>>>>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
>>>>> time,and you got major delays.

>>>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>>>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

>>> You don't know what you're talking about.

>> Everyone can see for themselves who doesnt know what they are talking about, child.

> True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.

>>> I have modern fast seeking drives in all my computers bar my
>>> Powermac and they ALL bog down when accessed by multiple programs at the same time.

>> How odd that mine dont. I dont even bother to have a separate PVR
>> anymore and I bet you couldnt even work out when its recording in a proper double blind trial with not being allowed 
>> to use the task manager to see whats running etc.

> As if I care! I don't even bother with a PVR.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you may or may not claim to care about in spades.

>>> I suggest you do a few simple experiments to prove this to yourself.

>> Been doing that since before you were even born thanks child.

> At 74 years of age, it's a fair guess that I was born a rather long time before you.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

> Given the childish nature of your arguments, it's fairly obvious who is the child here.

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?

>>> Do you reckon the seek limitations of mechanical hard drives might be the reason SSDs are so popular in applications 
>>> where speed is paramount?

>> Taint the SEEK speed thats the reason for that, child.

> It is ONE of the reasons

Wrong, as always.

> but not the only one.

It aint even one of them, child. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2341

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 06:43:09 +1100 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in Message id: <9mrlifFa8mU1@mid.individual.net>:

>Krypsis wrote
[...]

>> True, most people here seem to have worked out that you're a moron.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.

Nope, he's right. Everyone here *does* know you're a moron, and you prove
it each and every time you post.

What you need is a team of mental health professionals to keep you away
from your computer long enough to stop embarrassing yourself on usenet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2343

On 06/01/2012 1:35 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.
>
>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.
>
>>> Not very dramatically tho.
>
>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.
>
> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

Unfortunately there is nothing from benchmarks that are relevant to 
real-world apps, therefore there is nothing in them that I care about.

>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.
>
>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>
>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10,
>> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.
>
> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

I really don't care what you believe. I know what I have seen and what 
I've measured.

>> This normally happens during boot-up time,
>
> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

It also happens after a standby or hibernate resume, not just during 
full boot. It's a little less intense with hibernate, and even less with 
standby, but it's still there.

Besides, we're not here to take your advice on when or when not to boot 
our systems, we know when it needs to reboot, and there are good reasons 
to do it.

BTW, apparently Windows 8 will have a super-fast boot which will reload 
the kernel and drivers from something similar to a mini-hibernate file, 
which should result in 10 second reboots or less. They will give you the 
option to do a full reload just in case there are changes needed.

> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can,
> any reboot involved should happen when you arent using the system.

Most of us would say you're being silly not updating regularly. You do 
have the option of ignoring the updates as long you're in the middle of 
important work, so I have my Windows update set to just notify me but 
not to automatically apply the updates, but eventually you should 
update. Windows security holes abound, and they're usually bad.

>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere at any time.
>
> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.
>
>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time, and you got major delays.
>
> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

"Modern fast seeking hard drives" are the biggest burdens on modern PCs 
there is. If you take a look at the Windows 7 Experience Index, which 
rates the speed of components from 1 to 7.9, slow to fast respectively; 
yes it's a benchmark like any of the others and arbitrary in its 
measurements, but it is a common benchmark for everyone. It bases the 
overall experience number on the slowest component number in the system. 
In modern systems, that's invariably the hard drive system. It doesn't 
matter whether you have the latest top-line CPU, or hottest new GPU 
which are running close to the theoretical top 7.9 number, every system 
these days will be stuck with a 5.9 rating if they use a hard drive to 
boot up from. All modern hard drives are now stuck at the 5.9 rating 
level, therefore all of the fastest HD-based systems are stuck at the 
5.9 rating level. In fact, that speed rating is the same whether you 
have a hard drive that's less than a year old, or if you have one from 5 
years back; if you go back to 10 years ago, the speed rating might go 
down to an insignificantly smaller 5.7 vs. 5.9. There are big 
improvements in capacity year after year, but not in speed.

That is unless you go with an SSD as your boot device. SSD's seem to be 
the only significant new speed-up technology on the storage front. In 
the CPU and GPU realm, there have been great leaps and bounds made in 
speed, but in storage it's been pretty static for years at a time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2356

Yousuf Khan wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote

>>>>> I find that it doesn't even help even when multitasking.

>>>> The benchmarks clearly show that it does.

>>>> Not very dramatically tho.

>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

> Unfortunately there is nothing from benchmarks that are relevant to
> real-world apps, therefore there is nothing in them that I care about.

Thats the opposite of what I was talking about. You should take whatever
it is that you care about the speed of, and USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.

Take whatever real world work you care about the
speed of AND USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.

>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.

>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, 
>>> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.

>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

> I really don't care what you believe. I know what I have seen and what I've measured.

And the only example you have actually been able to list where
that actually happens for long enough to matter is with the boot,
and there are lots of ways to avoid that happening enough to matter.

>>> This normally happens during boot-up time,

>> Like I have said to you before, anyone with even half a clue
>> boots so rarely that that situation is completely irrelevant. If
>> you care about the speed of your system, the only thing that
>> makes any sense at all is to only boot very rarely, weeks or
>> months apart, and suspend or hibernate, not shutdown.

> It also happens after a standby or hibernate resume,

Like hell it does with 10 different processes competing for drive access.

> not just during full boot. It's a little less intense with hibernate,

It doesnt happen at all with a return from hibernate, JUST
ONE process is using the drive to load the content of ram
from the  hibernate file and its just from one file too, so
there isnt even access to multiple files going on either.

> and even less with standby,

None at all with suspend to ram in fact.

> but it's still there.

That is just plain wrong.

> Besides, we're not here to take your advice on when or when not to boot our systems, we know when it needs to reboot,

You clearly dont if you choose to do a full shutdown and
reboot when you arent using the system and dont like the
competition for drive access you get in a full reboot.

> and there are good reasons to do it.

Nope, not one if you dont like the competition for disk access by various processes.

> BTW, apparently Windows 8 will have a super-fast boot which will reload the kernel and drivers from something similar 
> to a
> mini-hibernate file, which should result in 10 second reboots or less.

A hibernate doesnt take that long right now. A suspend in spades.

> They will give you the option to do a full reload just in case there are changes needed.

>> Even if you are silly enough to religiously update as often as you can, any reboot involved should happen when you 
>> arent using the system.

> Most of us would say you're being silly not updating regularly.

Thats not the same thing as AS OFTEN AS YOU CAN.

> You do have the option of ignoring the updates as long you're in the middle of important work, so I have my Windows 
> update set to just notify me but not to automatically apply the updates, but eventually you should update. Windows 
> security holes abound, and they're usually bad.

That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

And thats an entirely separate matter to the other point that there
is no reason you cant do the update WHEN YOU ARENT USING
THE SYSTEM, SO YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HOW LONG THE
REBOOT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TAKES ANYWAY.

>>> but it doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere at any time.

>> Thats just plain wrong with numbers like that.

>>> Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same time, and you got major delays.

>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

> "Modern fast seeking hard drives" are the biggest burdens on modern PCs there is.

Wrong again, the user is.

> If you take a look at the Windows 7 Experience Index, which rates the speed of components from 1 to 7.9, slow to fast
> respectively; yes it's a benchmark like any of the others and
> arbitrary in its measurements, but it is a common benchmark for everyone. It bases the overall experience number on 
> the slowest component number in the system.

Its just some fool's 'index' of nothing meaningful at all.

> In modern systems, that's invariably the hard drive system.

Pity that in the real world, with most disk activity actually being media
files, where the file is accessed linearly, and the speed of access is
entirely determined by the media play speed, the drive has no effect
whatever on the speed at which the media is played.

> It doesn't matter whether you have the latest top-line CPU, or hottest new GPU which are running close to the 
> theoretical top 7.9 number, every system these days will be stuck
> with a 5.9 rating if they use a hard drive to boot up from.

The boot time is completely irrelevant for anyone with even half
a clue, because they arrange for that boot to happen when they
arent using the system.

> All modern hard drives are now stuck at the 5.9 rating level, therefore all of the fastest HD-based systems are stuck 
> at the 5.9 rating level. In fact, that speed rating is the same whether you
> have a hard drive that's less than a year old, or if you have one
> from 5 years back; if you go back to 10 years ago, the speed rating
> might go down to an insignificantly smaller 5.7 vs. 5.9. There are big
> improvements in capacity year after year, but not in speed.

PIty its the boot speed thats completely irrelevant to anyone with
even half a clue because anyone with even half a clue arranges
for their system to boot when they arent using it.

> That is unless you go with an SSD as your boot device. SSD's seem to
> be the only significant new speed-up technology on the storage front.

Wrong again. Suspend and hibernate are.

> In the CPU and GPU realm, there have been great leaps and bounds made in speed, but in storage it's been pretty static 
> for years at a time.

More mindless silly drivel. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2358

On 09/01/2012 5:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.
>
>>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.
>
>> Unfortunately there is nothing from benchmarks that are relevant to
>> real-world apps, therefore there is nothing in them that I care about.
>
> Thats the opposite of what I was talking about. You should take whatever
> it is that you care about the speed of, and USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.
>
> Take whatever real world work you care about the
> speed of AND USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.

Well, in the real world, what I care about most is multitasking, when 
several apps would be hitting the disk(s) at the same time. When they 
decide to hit the disk(s) is unpredictable. There are various apps 
running automatically in the background that hit the disk, from virus 
scanners, to streaming media services, to disk backups, bittorrents, 
etc., plus whatever app I'm using at the time in the foreground. I've 
had them all hit simultaneously at times. This cannot be adequately 
modelled by any single benchmark. If I were to run several instances of 
the benchmark at the same time, then it might work.

>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.
>
>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>
>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10,
>>>> but I'm talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue at any given time.
>
>>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.
>
>> I really don't care what you believe. I know what I have seen and what I've measured.
>
> And the only example you have actually been able to list where
> that actually happens for long enough to matter is with the boot,
> and there are lots of ways to avoid that happening enough to matter.

It's the only example that's easy to describe, every other instance this 
happens is random processes running simultaneously at random times.

>> It also happens after a standby or hibernate resume,
>
> Like hell it does with 10 different processes competing for drive access.
>
>> not just during full boot. It's a little less intense with hibernate,
>
> It doesnt happen at all with a return from hibernate, JUST
> ONE process is using the drive to load the content of ram
> from the  hibernate file and its just from one file too, so
> there isnt even access to multiple files going on either.
>
>> and even less with standby,
>
> None at all with suspend to ram in fact.

After they come back from standby or hibernate, the OS still does a 
rescan of the hardware to see that everything is still there, you'll see 
large plateaus in the disk activity graphs during this time that can 
last upto 10 seconds. My system is unusually huge, more a server than a 
desktop really: 6 internal hard drives, 2 internal optical drives, and 
various external USB & eSATA hard drives. It's probably not a system 
that should be running a desktop Windows really, more likely it should 
be running a Windows Server. In fact, that's probably the reason why 
running Linux on this system seems to be so much smoother on it.

>> but it's still there.
>
> That is just plain wrong.

It's only wrong because your little world view doesn't allow for it. 
What's beyond your horizon doesn't exist for you.

>>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.
>
>> "Modern fast seeking hard drives" are the biggest burdens on modern PCs there is.
>
> Wrong again, the user is.

Then why is the user waiting for things to get done when the hard drives 
get busy?

>> If you take a look at the Windows 7 Experience Index, which rates the speed of components from 1 to 7.9, slow to fast
>> respectively; yes it's a benchmark like any of the others and
>> arbitrary in its measurements, but it is a common benchmark for everyone. It bases the overall experience number on
>> the slowest component number in the system.
>
> Its just some fool's 'index' of nothing meaningful at all.
>
>> In modern systems, that's invariably the hard drive system.
>
> Pity that in the real world, with most disk activity actually being media
> files, where the file is accessed linearly, and the speed of access is
> entirely determined by the media play speed, the drive has no effect
> whatever on the speed at which the media is played.
>
>> It doesn't matter whether you have the latest top-line CPU, or hottest new GPU which are running close to the
>> theoretical top 7.9 number, every system these days will be stuck
>> with a 5.9 rating if they use a hard drive to boot up from.
>
> The boot time is completely irrelevant for anyone with even half
> a clue, because they arrange for that boot to happen when they
> arent using the system.

The WEI disk benchmark is always based on the system disk, i.e. the boot 
disk. The boot times are irrelevant here, it's just measuring the raw 
performance of the boot disk, but not during boot. You could conceivably 
have an SSD as a secondary data disk, while still booting from an HD, 
and your SSD's speed will be ignored completely and the times will be 
based completely on the HD's speed, because that's what you boot from.

It actually makes sense to use this disk as the benchmark target, as 
most or all of the Windows system files are located on the boot disk. 
Also, the applications are most often located on this drive too. So it's 
quite likely to be the most accessed drive in the system.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2359

Yousuf Khan wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote

>>>>> Too bad you can't run benchmarks as your applications.

>>>> You can however use what you care about the speed of as the benchmark.

>>> Unfortunately there is nothing from benchmarks that are relevant to
>>> real-world apps, therefore there is nothing in them that I care about.

>> Thats the opposite of what I was talking about. You should take whatever it is that you care about the speed of, and 
>> USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.

>> Take whatever real world work you care about the
>> speed of AND USE THAT AS THE BENCHMARK.

> Well, in the real world, what I care about most is multitasking, when several apps would be hitting the disk(s) at the 
> same time.

Then you should be using that config as the benchmark if you actually
use that config much of the time so the speed of that matters.

> When they decide to hit the disk(s) is unpredictable.

Not really.

> There are various apps running automatically in the background that hit the disk, from virus scanners, to streaming 
> media services, to disk backups, bittorrents, etc.,

Yes, but with those that significantly affect the speed of
the work the user is doing, when they do that is mostly
configurable, most obviously with backups and virus scans.

Streaming media services and bit torrents dont significantly
affect the speed of what the user is actually doing.

I dont even bother to have a separate PVR anymore,
and that can be recording anything up to 10 broadcast
TV channels simulataneously, and playing one of the
recorded programs, on one of the 5400 RPM eco drives,
while doing bittorrents and other downloads as well,
without having any noticable effect on what the user is doing.

> plus whatever app I'm using at the time in the foreground. I've had them all hit simultaneously at times.

Then you havent configured your system properly with the virus
scans and backups.

> This cannot be adequately modelled by any single benchmark.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY BENCHMARK MODELLING ANYTHING.

I AM TALKING ABOUT USING THE CONFIG YOU CARE ABOUT
THE SPEED DOING REAL LIVE WORK YOU DO ALL THE TIME
AS THE TEST OF THE SPEED OF THE CONFIG.

> If I were to run several instances of the benchmark at the same time, then it might work.

See just above.

You should be using the combination of stuff like bitorrents and
media streaming that can happen at the same time as the user
task as the test of the speed of the config, not any benchmark at all.

>>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue Length is
>>>>>>> over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on
>>>>>>> the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near 100%.

>>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

>>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't mean just something minor like 1.01, or 
>>>>> 1.10, but I'm
>>>>> talking about 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process
>>>>> waiting on the disk queue at any given time.

>>>> I just dont believe that that happens all that much for long to matter.

>>> I really don't care what you believe. I know what I have seen and what I've measured.

>> And the only example you have actually been able to list where
>> that actually happens for long enough to matter is with the boot,
>> and there are lots of ways to avoid that happening enough to matter.

> It's the only example that's easy to describe, every other instance this happens is random processes running 
> simultaneously at random times.

There is nothing random about when backups and virus scans happen.

And those can be configured to have minimal impact on what the user is
doing if you are actually silly enough to have scheduled them to happen at
the time when you dont like the impact of them on the work the user is doing.

>>> It also happens after a standby or hibernate resume,

>> Like hell it does with 10 different processes competing for drive access.

>>> not just during full boot. It's a little less intense with hibernate,

>> It doesnt happen at all with a return from hibernate, JUST
>> ONE process is using the drive to load the content of ram
>> from the  hibernate file and its just from one file too, so
>> there isnt even access to multiple files going on either.

>>> and even less with standby,

>> None at all with suspend to ram in fact.

> After they come back from standby or hibernate, the OS still does a rescan of the hardware to see that everything is 
> still there,

And that does NOT involve multiple processes competing for drive access.

> you'll see large plateaus in the disk activity graphs during this time that can last upto 10 seconds.

Like hell you do. In spades when coming out of suspend,
you in fact see no disk activity what so ever.

> My system is unusually huge, more a server than a desktop really:

Irrelevant to that silly claim of yours about multiple processes
competing for drive access when coming out of hibernate or suspend.

> 6 internal hard drives, 2 internal optical drives, and various external USB & eSATA hard drives.

Thats nothing unusual and irrelevant to what is being discussed,
your silly claim about multiple apps competing for drive activity
when coming out of hibernate or suspend instead of a full boot.

> It's probably not a system that should be running a desktop Windows really, more likely it should be running a Windows 
> Server.

Depends on how the drives are used.

> In fact, that's probably the reason why running Linux on this system seems to be so much smoother on it.

Fraid not.

>>> but it's still there.

>> That is just plain wrong.

> It's only wrong because your little world view doesn't allow for it.

Wrong with your stupid claim about what happens with coming out of suspend and drive activity.

Anyone can see for themselves that there is NO drive activity as a result of that.

> What's beyond your horizon doesn't exist for you.

Usual puerile attempt at insults.

>>>> Thats just plain wrong with modern hard drives. Very
>>>> minor delays in fact with modern fast seeking drives.

>>> "Modern fast seeking hard drives" are the biggest burdens on modern PCs there is.

>> Wrong again, the user is.

> Then why is the user waiting for things to get done when the hard drives get busy?

Irrelevant to your silly BIGGEST BURDON claim.

>>> If you take a look at the Windows 7 Experience Index, which rates
>>> the speed of components from 1 to 7.9, slow to fast respectively;
>>> yes it's a benchmark like any of the others and arbitrary in its measurements, but it is a common benchmark for
>>> everyone. It bases the overall experience number on the slowest
>>> component number in the system.

>> Its just some fool's 'index' of nothing meaningful at all.

>>> In modern systems, that's invariably the hard drive system.

>> Pity that in the real world, with most disk activity actually being
>> media files, where the file is accessed linearly, and the speed of
>> access is entirely determined by the media play speed, the drive has no effect whatever on the speed at which the 
>> media is played.

>>> It doesn't matter whether you have the latest top-line CPU, or
>>> hottest new GPU which are running close to the theoretical top 7.9 number, every system these days will be stuck 
>>> with a 5.9 rating if they use a hard drive to boot up from.

>> The boot time is completely irrelevant for anyone with even half
>> a clue, because they arrange for that boot to happen when they
>> arent using the system.

> The WEI disk benchmark is always based on the system disk, i.e. the boot disk. The boot times are irrelevant here, 
> it's just measuring
> the raw performance of the boot disk, but not during boot.

It isnt 'measuring' a damned thing.

> You could conceivably have an SSD as a secondary data disk, while still booting from an HD, and your SSD's speed will 
> be ignored completely

So it isnt actually 'measuring' a damned thing.

> and the times will  be based completely on the HD's speed, because that's what you boot from.

So it isnt actually 'measuring' a damned thing.

> It actually makes sense to use this disk as the benchmark target,

Like hell it does.

> as most or all of the Windows system files are located on the boot disk.

Pity they dont get access much at all once the boot is complete if you have plenty of ram.

> Also, the applications are most often located on this drive too.

Where the apps are located is also irrelevant when the machine is configured
properly so the apps that are used much are started at boot time.

> So it's quite likely to be the most accessed drive in the system.

Wrong again. The most accessed drive is where the data
files are stored for all except virus scans and full backups. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2289

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>> David Brown wrote
[...]
>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly, and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near
>>> 100%.
>>
>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.

> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't 
> mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about 
> 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue 
> at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it 
> doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere 
> at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same 
> time, and you got major delays.

>        Yousuf Khan

Seems tsomething was done here in 3.2 and moire maybe done in
the near future. Although from an article on LWN, its seems
the curent FS people have trouble understanding some of the
proposals made.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2348

On 06/01/2012 4:48 AM, Arno wrote:
> Yousuf Khan<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>> David Brown wrote
> [...]
>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly, and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>>>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged  near
>>>> 100%.
>>>
>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>
>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't
>> mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about
>> 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue
>> at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it
>> doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere
>> at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
>> time, and you got major delays.
>
>>         Yousuf Khan
>
> Seems tsomething was done here in 3.2 and moire maybe done in
> the near future. Although from an article on LWN, its seems
> the curent FS people have trouble understanding some of the
> proposals made.
>
> Arno

I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word you said, what are you talking about?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2354

On 09/01/12 17:35, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 4:48 AM, Arno wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>> David Brown wrote
>> [...]
>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>>>>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged near
>>>>> 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>>
>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't
>>> mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about
>>> 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue
>>> at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it
>>> doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere
>>> at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
>>> time, and you got major delays.
>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> Seems tsomething was done here in 3.2 and moire maybe done in
>> the near future. Although from an article on LWN, its seems
>> the curent FS people have trouble understanding some of the
>> proposals made.
>>
>> Arno
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word you said, what are you talking about?
>
> Yousuf Khan

It made some sense to me - maybe this key will help:

Translation of the abbreviations:

"3.2" = Linux kernel version 3.2
"LWM" = Linux Weekly News (a website)
"FS" = Filesystem

And the typos:

"tsomething" = something
"moire" = more
"its" = it
"curent" = current


I couldn't figure out which article Arno was referring to - maybe we 
could have a link?

mvh.,

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2360

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 09/01/12 17:35, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 06/01/2012 4:48 AM, Arno wrote:
>>> Yousuf Khan<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>>> David Brown wrote
>>> [...]
>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>>>>>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged near
>>>>>> 100%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>>>
>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't
>>>> mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about
>>>> 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue
>>>> at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it
>>>> doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere
>>>> at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
>>>> time, and you got major delays.
>>>
>>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>
>>> Seems tsomething was done here in 3.2 and moire maybe done in
>>> the near future. Although from an article on LWN, its seems
>>> the curent FS people have trouble understanding some of the
>>> proposals made.
>>>
>>> Arno
>>
>> I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word you said, what are you talking about?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan

> It made some sense to me - maybe this key will help:

> Translation of the abbreviations:

> "3.2" = Linux kernel version 3.2
> "LWM" = Linux Weekly News (a website)
> "FS" = Filesystem

All correct.

> And the typos:

> "tsomething" = something
> "moire" = more
> "its" = it
> "curent" = current

Note to self: Don't post when drunk ;-)

> I couldn't figure out which article Arno was referring to - maybe we 
> could have a link?

Sure: http://lwn.net/Articles/456904/

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2435

On 10/01/2012 6:31 AM, Arno wrote:
> David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>> On 09/01/12 17:35, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2012 4:48 AM, Arno wrote:
>>>> Yousuf Khan<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2012 3:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote
>>>>>>> David Brown wrote
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I monitor the disk subsection of the Resource Monitor regularly,
>>>>>>> and very often when the disk is busy the Disk Queue
>>>>>>> Length is over 1.00 (meaning more than 1 process is actively
>>>>>>> waiting on the disk) and the Active Time is pegged near
>>>>>>> 100%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesnt mean that NCQ doesnt help in that situaiton.
>>>>
>>>>> When I'm talking about the disk queue being higher than 1.00, I don't
>>>>> mean just something minor like 1.01, or 1.10, but I'm talking about
>>>>> 5.00, or even 10.00! There could be 10 process waiting on the disk queue
>>>>> at any given time. This normally happens during boot-up time, but it
>>>>> doesn't take very long for the disk queue to kick up to the stratosphere
>>>>> at any time. Just a few apps trying to access the same disk at the same
>>>>> time, and you got major delays.
>>>>
>>>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>>
>>>> Seems tsomething was done here in 3.2 and moire maybe done in
>>>> the near future. Although from an article on LWN, its seems
>>>> the curent FS people have trouble understanding some of the
>>>> proposals made.
>>>>
>>>> Arno
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word you said, what are you talking about?
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>
>> It made some sense to me - maybe this key will help:
>
>> Translation of the abbreviations:
>
>> "3.2" = Linux kernel version 3.2
>> "LWM" = Linux Weekly News (a website)
>> "FS" = Filesystem
>
> All correct.

Ah! Okay, I understand it now. BTW, my measurements were referring to 
Windows 7 here, not Linux. I actually don't have much of an issue with 
Linux using the same hardware, everything runs very fast. I just wish I 
could do more of my work in Linux, but I'm somewhat dependent on Windows 
apps in many cases. My Linux usage mainly consists of light-duty web 
surfing, which is fine, but I can't leave it in Linux most of the time 
simply for web surfing alone; in Windows, I can get the web surfing done 
and other work too.

>> I couldn't figure out which article Arno was referring to - maybe we
>> could have a link?
>
> Sure: http://lwn.net/Articles/456904/
>
> Arno

Oh interesting, so some cutting edge algorithms are being proposed for 
the Linux kernel to avoid overloading the disk queues. So has this 
Fengguang Wu's rejigged i/o patchset been implemented into Linux kernel 
3.2 full time now?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2262

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 06:07, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 1:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> What is the fastest hard drive access method for Windows 7 x64, IDE
>>> or AHCI ? I have a WD 1 TB caviar black, a Gigabyte z68xp-ud5
>>> motherboard and a Intel I3-2500K with 8 GB of ram.
>>>
>>> I see these thoughts:
>>> http://expertester.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/ahci-vs-ide-%E2%80%93-benchmark-advantage/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tweaks.com/windows/44119/improve-sata-hard-disk-performance-convert-from-ide-to-ahci/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I did the switch to AHCI back in the Windows XP days. At that time it
>>  was a difficult transition as there were no default AHCI drivers,
>> and switching to AHCI without doing some preparation meant that your
>> OS would not boot. It's still not an easy switch with Windows 7
>> either, you basically have to install Windows 7 with AHCI already
>> enabled or else it'll default to IDE and not include the AHCI drivers
>> in the install. Otherwise, switching to AHCI after installing Win 7
>> is already installed is nearly as difficult as XP. Linux could use
>> either type transparently, not sure why Microsoft didn't make it as
>> simple with its own drivers.
>>

> It's hard to comprehend MS's difficulty here.  There is little 
> measurable difference in performance between IDE mode and AHCI mode, but 
> people often /perceive/ "native SATA" mode as newer and faster than "IDE 
> emulation" mode.  So even if you can't measure a difference, it still 
> seems absurd that you have to jump through hoops to run "native SATA".

Indeed. And you onlu get reliably working hotplug with AHCI,
which is a factor for eSATA. Basically shows that when it
comes to things on the hardcore tech layer, MS is still
pretty far behind.

>> After doing the switch, I find absolutely no difference in
>> performance. However, I do have an external eSATA drive which can be
>> enabled and disabled on the fly just like a USB drive. I think if I
>> were still using IDE drivers, that wouldn't be nearly as easy
>> though.
>>

> There are two main differences in practice between SATA and IDE modes. 
> One is hotplug, as you mentioned, and the other is NCQ - native command 
> queueing.  (There are also a few other SATA commands, such as SSD trim 
> and secure erase.)

> NCQ won't make a significant difference in Linux, since it has always 
> had good algorithms to order disk accesses to minimise head movement. 
> It will sometimes make things worse, such as when the OS wants to 
> enforce a particular order (for transactions to filesystem journals, for 
> example).  And NCQ doesn't help windows much either - after all, it only 
> applies when you do more than one thing at a time.

Indeed again. NCQ is motsly for server loads, where a lot
of things run in parallel, with a sub-standard buffer-cache.
This certainly does not apply to Linux or the BSDs. No
idea whether it applies to Windows on servers. 

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web