Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2301
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage |
| Subject | Re: IDE or AHCI ? |
| Date | 2012-01-07 08:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <9mp6c4Ff2jU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <4f046249$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <9mjrq7F90aU1@mid.individual.net> <5YadnVh378gqYJjSnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@giganews.com> <9mnj16F3v8U1@mid.individual.net> <je6ri9$b5u$1@dont-email.me> |
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.
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