Mike@ComputerTechnical

Member
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike@ComputerTechnical

  1. Unfortunately that card will not work with that motherboard. The card is designed only for PCI-X and does not have the middle notch on the PCI bus area where the card would fit into a standard 33MHz PCI slot. Therefore if you were to try and push it into the slot, it would not seat properly because you wouldn't be able to physically push it in all the way. Please note that most PCI-X cards are able to be used in a standard 33MHz PCI slot, that is if they have the physical notch in the middle that would allow them to fit.
  2. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    From my understanding, it does read ahead (which is also called pre-fetching) when dealing with hard drives in this particular situation. Granted it does also keep recently accessed data that is used the most, but that is not its sole purpose like in system cache or L1 and L2 cache. http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/op/cache-c.html or even a version from Storage Review http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref...eCircuitry.html
  3. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    Yes, it works exactly like that, to say in the simpliest terms. The cache allows the hard drive to read ahead (of the data it will write) 8MB in this situation. It then writes its 8MB, then goes back to read ahead 8MB more, and so on.
  4. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    Not a problem, I enjoy sharing my knowledge and helping people! I hope that answers all your questions you may have! If not, let me know! Mike
  5. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    You are thinking into this matter too deeply. Keep it simple! This was a hypothetical situation, those numbers no way represent an actual hard drive and I used those to show how read speed is in most cases is faster than write speed. Yes, that does sound right. I am afraid you might be missing the point of my original post. When copying data from one drive to another drive, this method will always be faster than copying data from one part of a drive to the same drive. That is of course if you are using drives of the same era and would not be true if you were using two older drives say from the early 90's comparing them to one of the year 2005. Bottom line, that number sounds right when copying data from two fairly older drives to the other. That is correct also, the heads are on a single actuator arm which moves as one unit. In a two platter drive there are four heads since the platters are double-sided. All four heads are attached to the same actuator arm meaning that if one head moves, they all move since the arm is moving. C:\ would also be created on the outter edges of all the sides on all the platters. Don't think too deeply into that. All it does is break the data up into different segments. If it was not done this way, hard drives would be a lot slower since one head might be in the right location on the top platter, but the bottom one is not. It would have to wait for the actuator to move and for the disk to rotate until it gets into the correct position, and then have to repeat this process again. That would be a major slow down. So all you need to know is that all the heads write data respectively to the platter (that is start and end at the same position, just on different platters or sides of the platter).
  6. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    XP Login

    Not a problem, I'm glad I could help!
  7. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    XP Login

    Delete them, if yov've never used the account, then all there are folders, so you should delete them as it would help prevent useless folders from being present. Not at all. The easiest way is to open 'My Computer,' select the drive you want AutoPlay on, then goto 'Properties' of that drive, goto the 'AutoPlay' tab, and then select the action you want for each specific type of file or media that is in the drive.
  8. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    XP Login

    Absolutely perfectly alright, just another Microsoft ploy to get their software out there.
  9. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    XP Login

    If you are the only user (or the only account), usually this need to click the picture was created when you update your Windows XP to include Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1. Microsoft by default chose to create an extra account on your system when you install that update named ASP .NET. All you need to do is simply delete this account and your problem should go away. Mind you, only if this is your problem, which it sounds like it.
  10. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    Thank you very much pubidcam for getting back to me. Why I asked that question was for an obvious reason. That data transfer rate of 2MB/s is right on target for your case. Let me explain why. When you copy data from one drive to a different drive, simultaneous things are happening at one time. While the one drive is reading the data, the other drive is writing that same data. Therefore the speed will usually be as fast as the slowest hard drive in the system. Whether it be the drive that is reading, or the one that is writing, but in most cases hard drives writes are usually slower than their reading (45MB/s read average vs. say 30MB/s write average), but if you are transferring data from an older drive to a newer one, then obviously the read will be the limiting factor, as long as the read is less than the write speed of the newer drive. Now in your case, what is happening is that it is not your system (motherboard, processor, memory, etc...) that is the limitation, but in fact the hard drive itself. As in the scenario above, that is the preferred situation of having to transfer data. In your situation, and for the most part with mechanical hard drives, when transferring data between partitions or places on that same hard drive, it will always be much slower than transferring to another drive. Why? The answer is simple. As stated, when transferring data to a different drive simultaneous things happen at the same time. Where in a single hard drive scenario, the same hard drive is reading AND writing. This slows the hard drive down tremendously. Because as you should know, the modern and most common type of hard drive is mechanical, with metal platters inside the drive that read and write much like a CD does, only that in a hard drive data is written from the outside inward, where in a CD, it is the opposite. With this said, as you are copying (reading) data from the outer more parts of the platter (or vice versa, depending on where the data is located and how much of the drive space is used), at the same time the drive is also writing. This causes the hard drive to slow down a lot, because as the actuators (devices used in a hard drive to read and write) are at one part of the drive (assuming that you have the disk somewhat full and the data you are copying at the beginning of the hard drive), the actuators have to move away from the original spot on the platter of where it was reading the data to a more further spot to write and then back again to read. And it does this repeatedly, as you can imagine, this is not efficient or fluent. It's a start and stop process that happens repeatedly. And being such an old drive, it does not have NCQ or TCQ which would help in a scenario like this or a fragmented drive (where the data reading or writing is spread out and not next to each other). Where in a two drive situation, one drive is reading (constantly), and the other drive is writing (constantly), which makes it smoother and faster than a single drive transfer. What plays into making your transfer speed slow is basically the rotational speed of the drive (RPM wise), internal drive cache (in your case a very small amount, 380KB), and platter size. So as you can see, the specs on the IBM drive are very low in terms of speed and up-to-date. It is no surprise that the IBM drive would get that slow of a speed. That is actually right around where you should be for that type of data transfer on that old of a drive. I hope this answers your question and helps you, sorry that it is kind of long, I wanted to explain it as complete as I could in words and as simple as I could. Mike
  11. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Copy speeds are low, less than 2MB/s!

    Could you please just clarify whether it transfers only at 2MB/s when you transfer files from the IBM HD to a different part of the IBM HD.
  12. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    SATA II Drives?

    The fact is that the limitation on today's current hard drives are not the interfaces themselves, rather actually the physical limitations, such as spindle speed. You could even go as far as adding a fiber optic interface on a 7200RPM drive, but it doesn't change the fact that the REAL limitation is from the rotation speed. Until we find a better medium than platters and a couple head/actuators, the fastest interface in the world wouldn't help you. I would only go as far as to classify Soild State Disk (SSD) technology as successfully achieving this currently. This technology is mainly the only expensive way to saturate its interface (a fiber optic line.) So until current standard hard drives catch up to the SATA I technology and actually saturate it fully, SATA II may not be truly needed. Currently with the most recent mechanical hard drive technology, I would not want to spend my money on expensive new things. Remember, new doesn't necessarily mean faster or better, especially in this case. Just something to think about. I don't know, but that's my 2 cents and my opinion.
  13. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Shopping for an LSI MegaRAID SCSI 320-2

    Does anyone have an LSI MegaRAID SCSI 320-2 card for sale or know where one can be purchased for a fairly decent price? Thank you so much!
  14. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Shopping for an LSI MegaRAID SCSI 320-2

    Yeah, the MegaRAID SCSI 320-2x's are nice. I own a couple too. But recently one of my 320-2 (the non-2x) died for one of my older computers, the computer isn't too fast so I really don't want to waste the money on a 320-2x. So for compatibility purposes, I am replacing it with the same one, a 320-2. That is why I will buy one used.
  15. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    Another thing to consider is that the cache is only 8MB, which is small compared to the drive size and the size of files used during benchmarks. Exactly like bfg9000 said, the problem would be finding a benchmark capable of measuring the cache stream for that brief second (ms' for that matter) before the cache is not good anymore and needs to be refreshed, from that stand point, yes you could have a burst of 320 MB/s. The only problems would be detecting it in that split second it is cached, because most of the data would be random after that.
  16. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    Exactly!
  17. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    Yup, you are absolutely right, although that is irrelavant to the topic. For people who are getting confused here, the despute is over why he is not receiving 320 MB/s burst from one SCSI drive. Yes it is an Ultra 320 SCSI controller, yes it has up to 320 MB/s bandwidth, but the thing people need to realize is that with the current technology offered, no single SCSI drive will ever burst that high. An Ultra 320 SCSI controller was designed with that much bandwidth not for a single drive, but was designed with up to 15 drives in mind. That is what differs with SCSI vs. IDE. IDE channels are designed primarily for one drive's bandwidth needs in mind, please do realize though, and this too is a common misconception, that IDE drives do not, and will not (when you have 2 IDE drives connected to one channel) both access the controller/use bandwidth at the same time. IDE technology permits it from doing it otherwise. Where as with SCSI, all 15 drives connected to one channel can all be accessing data via the controller and using bandwidth. In which case, this is where 320 MB/s comes into play and is helpful. Because now what you do is, if all 15 drives are actually accessing the channel at the same time per say, then you would divide 320 MB/s by 15. (bandwidth / number of drives). That is why if you plan to use SCSI hard drives, just not in that amount, but only 2 SCSI hard drives, an Ultra 160 controller will do you just fine, you won't be able to max the 160 MB/s until you have 2-4 drives (many factors, dependent on what SCSI drives being used, how old the technology of the drives are, speed, etc...). Theoretically you could run 2 Ultra 320 SCSI drives on an ATA-133 channel and not max the throughput. That is because both drives will never be accessing the channel at the same time and because the latest SCSI drives do not have a sustained data rate (drive to controller) over about 80-90 MB/s, and do not have a burst more than 120-130 MB/s. Obviously there is more to that than just being able to work, because now you don't have the superior caching of a SCSI controller, drives can not simultaneously use the channel, and that is just in theory, so as you can see there would be many issues to be worked out first, that was just an example of bandwidth usages. Anyway, I hope this clarifies it some.
  18. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    *EDIT* ^would get
  19. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    I didn't think so, but either way, there would never be a time that you would any current SCSI hard drive to burst at 320 MB/s. That burst that you listed is normal, nothing is wrong.
  20. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Burst Rate for U320 drives

    Well the 32 bit PCI (or 33MHz PCI bus) of SCSI can only handle about 160 MB/s. But if yours was the 64 bit (66MHz PCI bus) of SCSI, then it should be bursting at 320 MB/s. Please remember though, just because the SCSI burst (assumed as being the 64 bit version) MAY support 320 MB/s, does not necessarily mean that the drive can actually burst at that speed. SCSI leaves extra bandwidth for other drives, remember, up to 15 drives can be connected to one channel. So in a multi-hard drive SCSI system, that overhead can easily get filled, but will not all be used with just one drive attached.
  21. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Partitioning For Speed?

    Amen to that Gilbo!
  22. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Sil 680 Bios Problem

    I am very happy to hear that you have found the problem and fixed it! Unfortunately enough, "You do get what you pay for." Those RAID controllers really are not bad though considering their price/ performance/ and features. Sometimes that is all it takes too is a little playing around with things. But as a rule of thumb, never use untested things with broken things. Like you would not want to race a car with only half a full set of new tires! Oh well, you live and you learn! Bottom line, you fixed it and learned something new from the whole experience! Anyway, I am glad you were able to fix it. And I am glad I was able to help in some sort of way. Cheers mate!
  23. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Maxtor 300gb & Ata/133 Card

    This has worked in the past to format 200GB drives that a client requested me to do since the XP partitioner was only allowing the 128GB barrier of the time during install, and unfortunately there was no work around at the time during the XP install. What you do is insert a Windows 98 SE CD into the system, and go only through the beginning part of the install so that it formats the drive, then you quit the Windows 98 SE setup after it is has finished and you proceed to install XP on the disk by selecting "Use the current file-system." Windows 98 SE formats just about anything bypassing the 48-bit LBA limit. It worked with the 200GB drives so I imagine it would work with the 300GB drive. As for NTFS corrupting your files on a different drive, I do not see how it would. And in this case, NTFS would be a superior choice over FAT32 merely because of the size of disk you have (300GB), FAT32 does not work as well with larger disk volumes. Anyway, let me know how it goes by following what I have found to work. Cheers mate and good luck!
  24. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Sil 680 Bios Problem

    I am sorry to hear that. Well at least we tried. I wish you luck in your pursuit!
  25. Mike@ComputerTechnical

    Sil 680 Bios Problem

    Just read what I have posted above.