Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2256
| Date | 2012-01-04 14:44 +0100 |
|---|---|
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage |
| Subject | Re: IDE or AHCI ? |
| References | <jdvhfu$5o3$1@dont-email.me> <4f03de83$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <hPWdnT07Memqm5nSnZ2dnUVZ7oadnZ2d@lyse.net> <9mikluFi92U1@mid.individual.net> |
| Message-ID | <bMCdnWLHAIfDxZnSnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@lyse.net> (permalink) |
On 04/01/2012 10:32, Rod Speed wrote: > David Brown wrote >> Yousuf Khan wrote >>> 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. > > For you, sure. > >> There is little measurable difference in performance between IDE >> mode and AHCI mode, > > Yes. > >> but people often /perceive/ "native SATA" mode as newer and faster >> than "IDE emulation" mode. > > More fool them. > >> So even if you can't measure a difference, > > Corse you can. > >> it still seems absurd that you have to jump through hoops to run >> "native SATA". > > Why when the difference is so trivial ? You do realise you are arguing against yourself here, don't you? First you agree that there is only a trivial difference in performance between IDE and AHCI modes, then you argue that "of course" you can measure it, then you argue that there is little point in using it (on Windows) since the differences are trivial... Back to reality. Yes, the performance differences are trivial. Yes, they /can/ be measured - but the differences are below the noise threshold for most windows machines. To measure them, you have to be careful about test conditions, background services, repetition of the tests, clean installs, etc. That's fine for a website specialising in tests and benchmarks, but of little use to most people. However, whatever the technical benefits (or lack thereof) of using AHCI instead of IDE, user perception and expectation should be important to a supplier like MS. The effort needed to get hard drive drivers in place and working in Windows, and the scope for getting it wrong and causing problems, is just silly when you look at how simple it is with Linux. > >>> 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. > > And so does Win. I wasn't talking about Windows here. > >> 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 > > Wrong. > No, it is correct - NCQ doesn't help windows much. Benchmarks vary, as it depends heavily on the usage patterns. It is a win in some cases, and a loss on others - but seldom by particularly large margins. >> - after all, it only applies when you do more than one thing at a >> time. > > Which Win does all the time. > > I knew that would provoke you :-)
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