allnighte

Member
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by allnighte

  1. allnighte

    Page File not creating

    i looked in the changes list for SP1, nothing in there about page files at all. and i did a google search for my SCSI card and page file - nothing came up there either. i doubt it's the SCSI card, as it's a pretty popular card and i imagine a lot of people have a page file on a drive on it :s nice suggestions though
  2. allnighte

    Page File not creating

    my setup is as follows: AXP 1800+ 512MB PC133 MSI KT7Turbo2 LSI Logic U160 SCSI card Seagate Cheetah X-15 36LP 18gig (C drive, boot drive) 5400 RPM Maxtor 20gig on IDE (D:, storage) my problem is that windows will NOT make a pagefile on C, no matter what I tell it. I can freely change the size of the page file on D, but if I tell windows I want a 500 MB page file on C, and nothing on D, it will put 500 MB's on D. I've tried changing registry settings manually (even changing the path of the pagefile from root to WINDOWS or even another directory) I've tried setting the local security policy - "create a page file" from Admins to Everyone I've also taken out my D drive, but when windows starts up, it says "no page file exists" and says "a temporary page file has been created" but I don't see any page file. I've googled for a long time and haven't come up with anything that can help. my C drive is a dynamic disk, and I thought that may be the cause, but there is no mention about dynamic disks not having page files on MS's site. I know the computer needs "system" access to the drive to create a page file, but there is no option to set any security settings when I go to the drive/folder properties any ideas?
  3. allnighte

    Page File not creating

    oops, forgot to mention that in my post yes, I'm running WinXP, non-SP1
  4. allnighte

    Western Digital Raptor WD360GD

    all this firmware tweaking makes me wonder what could happen to my X-15 36LP if it was tweaked for single-user performance
  5. allnighte

    10k rpm ata drive from western digital

    did you happen to see the front page of http://www.storagereview.com ? it's a great site, check it out sometime just playin'
  6. With raid0, you get better throughput but equal or worse access time than a single drive. With a 10k rpm drive, you get better access time. It's two different "speed"s you're talking about. I don't think you can improve access time no matter how many drives you're striping via raid0. Actually, quite the opposite. RAID0 lowers accesstime, and the more drives, the more it is lowered. Lestat (who is about to invest in a 15k.3 ) please, enlighten me with this information (preferably with benchmarks and not theoretical assumptions) i have only seen RAID 0 setups have equal or a bit longer access times
  7. well, if there's no limit as to how much data you can cram per square inch, then i don't think we will ever see a move to >7200 RPM i can see that if the general computer community start to see that access times are important, then drive manufacturers might be willing to make the move sooner it's all up to supply and demand though
  8. i have never had it crash it does, however, time out after what seems like a little longer than 2 minutes try waiting a while, and it should pop up with a red error and you can continue
  9. time for benchmarks that prove absolutely nothing! (except maybe one) my system: Athlon XP1800+ MSI Turbo2 KT133A 512MB PC133 RAM WinXP (non-sp1) 5400 RPM IDE 20 (didn't use this at all) LSI U160 single channel X-15 36LP 18gig almost every patch you can think of, to name a few; via latency, 4in1's (not hyperion), lsi aspi driver, raid performance patch, etc etc etc... now for stopwatch tests! yay! BEFORE DANGEROUS XP FILTER BF1942 startup - 18.9 seconds BF1942 single player load map - 21.7 booting XP - 39.8 581MB tar file copy (from C: to C:) - 90 seconds the untaring of the file - 56.0 raring to the final 603MB .bin file - 74 now some bechmarks! one of only any significance: *^ see note at bottom of post ^* AFTER DANGEROUS XP FILTER!!!!: BF1942 startup - 22.6 BF1942 single player load map - 22 booting XP - 44 seconds (then another reboot, 40 seconds) 581MB tar file copy (from C: to C:) - 83 seconds the untaring of the file - 55.0 raring to the final 603MB .bin file - 78 since i only have 1 cheetah, i can't do a file copy from a data source that can write at more than 50MB/s so what's the meaning of this post? well... just to show that there's no real performance increase (at least, for my system) and i even got an error after installing the patch when i closed explorer (it was a management program that crashed or something) so i'll be uninstalling it and keeping my data safe (i didnt even backup any data before doing this, hehe) *^note^* actually, when reviewing some of my older ATTO's, the "before" results are kindof low. as i had done some tweaking with patches and have come up with the 45MB writes/51MB reads like the "after" result i'm not saying cas didn't do anything, because i'm sure he did but i'm hoping i can help prevent any sort of freakout from some uninformed users thinking this patch is the GOLDEN KEY to "fix" everything
  10. Okay i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse... but what does this mean about other programs? ie. games? and boot up? is winXP doing things the same/just as fast as win2k? and are the findings about cascopy and windows explorer true also for RAID? maybe i'm just looking for that definitive "yes" or "no" answer from Eugene i <3 Eugene :wink:
  11. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    DEAR GOD YES well, for my X-15 36LP that is. the access times aren't affected, so everything still feels very snappy and quick compared to my IDE drives
  12. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    pardon me if i'm mistaken but are you guys referring to the system files that windows uses for the scsi control? it was stated somewhere (not sure if it was here) that winXP protects certain system files, and re/moving or overwriting does nothing as winXP will just put back the original files sorry if i'm off topic
  13. allnighte

    AMI XP Drivers

    i have the LSI U160. they don't give any drivers on their site for it (2k/xp has built in drivers that LSI recommends) however i did get one thing off their site that helped: http://www.lsilogic.com/support/drivers/sc...si/winaspi.html the win ASPI manager bumped up my transfer rates on my X-15 36LP about 5MB/s (suffering from WinXP/SCSI issue) all in all, i think the winXP drivers are fine
  14. allnighte

    via latency patch not effective

    unfortunately, the other drive i have is a 5400 RPM 20 gig IDE so i won't be able to tell actually, if i can find some RAM drive software, i might be able to test that. *googles for a while*
  15. actually, if i understand correctly, the "tag and seek" isn't yet supported. so no one really knows how much it helps just yet (please correct me if i'm wrong)
  16. allnighte

    via latency patch not effective

    about my previous post: i meant to say that all those patches (including dynamic disks) brought my score TO 44MB/s reads, 35ishMB/s writes. however, last night, i installed the VIA IDE mini-port driver, and i'm now past 50MB/s!@#!@# i have no idea why an IDE patch did this, and i played around in powerstrip with the PCI latency to make sure this wasn't a fluke, and sure enough, more success! my reads now just barely pass 50MB/s, and my writes are at 44MB/s i'm almost there! then again, depending on where on the platter ATTO is testing, i might be at about the limits of performance
  17. allnighte

    New Members say hello here!

    i'm fairly new, so i'll post anyway (and encourage the other newbs to post ) i came occasionally to the SR site when a review was linked on another site (like hardocp.com) but started coming to the forums a lot after i had heard about the whole WinXP/SCSI/RAID fiasco, i started coming to the forums and trying to figure out why the heck my cheetah is hella slow :cry: so hi.... and ... stuff....
  18. allnighte

    via latency patch not effective

    i have an LSI U160, and found on LSI's site, an ASPI driver that bumped my scores to over 40MB/s also, the pci latency patch i got was .20 beta 4 (there's also a beta 8 ) and that increased my scores a tad and raid performace patch 1.04 but i'm still running 20MB/s lower than my cheetah can go
  19. :?: if i'm not mistaken, this has already been known for a while since IDE RAID uses the same subsystem(?) as SCSI, the results from changing from basic to dynamic are the same but i guess you guys don't click on threads about SCSI huh?
  20. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    okay when i get home, i first want to run ATTO with the smallest file size, to see if even cache/burst rates go above 45mb/s (if they don't.. i guess it's time for some researching) then i'll give the raid performance patch a shot i think i need to double check ALL my settings (bios, scsi card especially) to make sure i have it tweaked for performance i also had a thought. for those running their scsi cards in a 64/66 slot, were they seeing perfect (ideal) results? i can't find someone that was running 64/66 and had this performance problem though i don't know what that would mean if it were true :?
  21. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    not a RAID board just your standard cheapo U160, single channel, 1 external and 1 internal connector, 64/66 pci compatible (but running in 32/33) and i looked up the raid performance patch, and it looks like it's really only for IDE
  22. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    i downloaded powerstrip and gave it a shot first of all, is it normal to have 2 SCSI devices listed? they have different addresses, so it looks like i really do have 2 controllers, but i don't (2 show up in device manager too) so i ran PS, and i thought you said LOWER the latency, so i put it from 248 to 32 my scores decreased about 10mb/s in write and read. i tried almost everything in between 32 and 248, and i think 248 still gave me the best (i also poked around my AGP latency timing too, but i don't think my graphics card performance changed much) my specs: Athlon XP 1800 MSI KT7 turbo (2?) LSI U160 single channel cheetah x-15 36lp winXP as it stands, atto reports i get about 36mb/s writes, and 44 mb/s reads i have the PCI latency patch installed (perhaps that's why my card was set at 248 already?) i do have the latest 4in1's i don't remember if i have the raid performance patch, i guess i'll try that next. and i check the LSI site for bios/drivers upgrade every week, but they just say to use winXP drivers i still love the quick access times of the cheetah, but copying files to itself is strangely slow (14mb/s (7 reading, 7 writing) in the performance charts) and some other things involving sustained transfers is lower than what even ATTO shows
  23. err pardon me but he said he is using Win2k and i'm not positive, but i believe you can't convert to dynamic disks under 2k (only xp can do this, iirc) so let me at a question service pack 3? or 2? (or 1?!) i believe SP3 creates the same problem as the "winxp write performance issue" i'm not a pro, but this is what i "heard"
  24. I almost creamed myself when I saw this story on [H] 10 minutes ago! I backed up my registry, went to look for the key, but it was already there!, and it was set to 1! I was so dissapointed on a side note, I have not installed any drivers for my SCSI card (simply because none are given on the LSI site, they say WinXP has the drivers). and I don't think i've installed any [working] software that might have put the key there okay so a summary: the key exists in my registry, and is 1. also in my drive properties, I can check and uncheck write cache, it was checked anyway, here are my results okay so afterwards, I disabled write cache, rebooted and benched: and then, I was curious and went into the registry, and the key was 0 (remember, I had just turned off write cache!) i'm no SCSI expert by any means, but i'd like to think of myself as somewhat winXP profficient but it looks like putting this key into your regsitry is kindof like a "force" to enable write cache. I hope this info helps, and I can't wait to figure out how to fix this problem! (it SHALL be fixed!)
  25. allnighte

    Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP

    *update!* i just enabled write cache; this is on dynamic disk mode very interesting! this seems to get rid of that read thats *always* ahead, but my writing isnt performing as well with write cache disabled