Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2356
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage |
| Subject | Re: IDE or AHCI ? |
| Date | 2012-01-10 09:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <9n18bqFvnaU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <4f046249$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <9mjrq7F90aU1@mid.individual.net> <5YadnVh378gqYJjSnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@giganews.com> <9mnj16F3v8U1@mid.individual.net> <4f0b06c1$1@news.bnb-lp.com> |
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.
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