Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2343
| Date | 2012-01-09 10:24 -0500 |
|---|---|
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage |
| Subject | Re: IDE or AHCI ? |
| References | (2 earlier) <hPWdnT07Memqm5nSnZ2dnUVZ7oadnZ2d@lyse.net> <4f046249$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <9mjrq7F90aU1@mid.individual.net> <5YadnVh378gqYJjSnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@giganews.com> <9mnj16F3v8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| Message-ID | <4f0b06c1$1@news.bnb-lp.com> (permalink) |
| Organization | Send abuse or DMCA complaints to abuse@bnb-lp.com |
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.
Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web