rgray175

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rgray175

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I have to agree with leokor. Unless you have other issues like the ACPI sound issue or Network Card problems I would also recommend not messing around with IRQ assignments as XP does a good job of handling the hardwares resources. The main problem is the automatically chosen ACPI mode during installation. W2k/XP will use only one IRQ (9) for all PCI devices. Normally this should be no problem, but in these cases the IRQ sharing suffers from bad performance. The computer won't crash, and everything works, but not as well as it should. Two examples: When using a Hammerfall USB/MIDI operation will cause audio stuttering even at highest latency. Data transfers via a network card in the background will disturb audio playback significantly. The remedy is to change from ACPI to Standard-PC mode and then assign IRQ's to your liking, but like I said before, I suspect assigning a lone irq to your SCSI card would not fully help the performance issue if at all but you have to experiment to solve issues like this, not just assume it won't help. I may just give this a try the next time I feel like installing my Windows XP and then re benchmarking my drives to see what if any improvement has occured in Hard Drive performance. I bet it does not help any tho... So far Optimizing Windows XP and installing the Via SCSI Performance patch has given me acceptable SCSI Hard Drive Performance on my Adaptec 29160 and X15.
  2. Croc, I would have to say no to that as I have tried that very thing with XP but I was not able to assign an IRQ to a particular slot on my board as Microsoft explains Windows XP will ignore any settings the board tries to impose regarding irq's. But, MS does give a workaround if it is absolutely necessary to give a specific device its own irq. It requires that you reinstall Windows and during setup force a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) using Standard PC instead of using the default ACPI configuration. Then and only then will Windows XP accept the IRQ that the board assigns it. Q299340 How to force a HAL http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;EN-US;q299340 And Arkos Reed, I did not mention the PCI Latency Patch, I mentioned the Via RAID Performance Patch for SCSI Card performance improvement under Windows. Not bad at all an over 100% increase in write speed and 34% in burst Its a shame that so many people don't realize that Via has implemented the RAID Performance Patch that addresses the Burst speed issue for most SCSI cards and their chipsets. I know atleast a dozen people with Via Chipsets, SCSI systems all running XP or 2K and all of them have SCSI performance issues and none have installed the Via RAID Performance Pack. BTW, dont let the word RAID confuse you as its intended for RAID chips like the ones we are using here and it works weather your using it in RAID or not. But, I must say that the performance patch is just for Burst speed and makes up only a small margin of total performance. Given that the market is saturated with Via chipsets its my guess that their must be thousands of people all over with the same Terrible SCSI performance in Windows XP issue you and I had as this thread is littered with them. Now I just wonder what the diference would be with the same system running XP with the Via Performance Pack http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=66
  3. rgray175

    WD100GB, $100 Worth it

    I love Western Digital and the drive your talking about is quite descent. I own a Wester Digital WD1000JB and its the fastest IDE I have ever played around with. Damn near beat my X15.... russofris is right as $1 per gig is good
  4. lol...No problem! Yeah its a little much but hey its XP what can I say. Theres no other way to get it to run as fast as like a Windows 9X machine. It's just a resource hogging OS, Unless you take the time and Tweak the hell out of it... Personally I have zero tolerence with a slow Windows box but thats just me :x Anyway, your welcome! btw, everyone loves that XP Guide and its doing a lot of people some real good. Give it a try, youl like the results. Just make sure you know what each Optimization does before doing it.
  5. This is what all my computers get with Enable Disconnection set at NO or Disabled including my X15 on my personal computer at home. This is what I get with it set to Yes or Enabled both at the office and at work This is what the 2nd Generation X15 does on a Windows XP machine before the Via RAID Performance Patch This is what the X15 does after the patch is applied So you see it very well could be that thousands of people all across the world have been complaining about a write speed discrepancy that was easily remedied if the device was left to Disconnect from the bus which just happens to be the default on my Adaptec 29160N. Obviously setting "Enable Disconnection" to NO has done "EXACTLY" what alot of people here including the topic starter has complained about. Now for other issues regarding SCSI throughput in Windows XP, well, learn to Optimize your Windows or live with it. Until my Web Site is released I highly recommend following Koroush Ghazi's excelent Format to Relax Guide at http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dTyp...e=guide&dId=324 as I basically do the same thing before, during and after my installs. If there is another reason for the write speed problem under Windows XP than I too would be affected by it.
  6. I'm sorry pprior and, you are quite right, 3 hours of Optimizing...lol is NOT gonna fix the issues here and I didnt mean to sound like it would. But I'm an accomplished tweaker and have been tweaking computers for 20 years and I absolutely know that Optimizing a system after install is faster at throughput as compared to a new computer just freshly installed with Windows and then left totally alone at all default settings, thats just common sense. Enough with that, its not the issue I'm after so let's not get into a debate about Optimization. After my Windows XP (Planet-XP) site has been designed and tweaked I will show you mods and Optimizations then, but not here. This is a "SCSI performance in XP" thread not a Windows XP Help site... Anyway, I just got off the phone with Seagate and they tell me I'm the first person to have solved the 12mb/sec write barrier that they know of (I'm sure many others have too but just not told anyone) and they are going to post my studies and do some more testing of their own. I have been building systems for the United States Government since 1983 and I currently run a super large network. What I do and have been doing for many many years when confronted with a single SCSI device on the scsi bus is to set Enable Disconnection to NO. See, the nature of SCSI is for a device such as a hard drive to connect to the host, do its business as fast as possible and then disconnect to allow other SCSI devices to use the bus (hence multiple devices on the scsi cable) which is a common resource. But, It had occurred to me that disconnects would possibly be disallowed in newer applications like Windows XP but it was just a hunch and so I started my tests again to try and solve the 12mb/sec barrier. I know there are multiple issues here with XP and SCSI throughput in general but I will have those issues looked at later. But this thread was started by someone wanting his write speeds to more closely match his read speeds so I will focus on that. Now, if you read your SCSI manual or read up on the subject of SCSI like I have you will learn that ALL current SCSI Host adapters allow for a setting called Enable Disconnection. WHY? well thats simple taking the following notion that SCSI devices disconnect to allow other devices to use the bus, but what if you don't have other devices? Well, since ALL SCSI Host Card manufacturers claim that setting Enable Disconnection to NO or disable will increase your single SCSI device performance then most people would inheritantly do so. Reading through the SCSI cards manual you would discover that Disconnection should be set to NO for single devices and proceed in doing so just to discover weeks or months later during a benchmark that your write speeds suck. At the time you would not know why but some may discover that disabling Disconnection was the culprit and others may just come to StorageReview and post a "why is my SCSI write speed so terrible under XP" thread like this one. Most people would have forgotten that they set it to no and or simply not realize that it is set to no. DO NOT set Enable Disconnect to NO or Disable on Windows XP machines as I have seen the same results as people in this thread. Some cards may be set to NO Disconnection by default and if that is the case you will not be able to get any SCSI hard drive to write past 12mb/sec give or take a few megs. I have 5400 computers to test this theory out on and so far my results are the same every time. The following posts will reflect screenshots of having "Enable Disconnection" set to NO or disable. By the way, I will also post a screen of the Via patch and what it did for my SCSI Burst speed "Just Amazing" thanks to my friends at Via for fixing this but I wish I had discovered it sooner
  7. By the way, I see TimmyHH has Read Write speeds higher than most of us using a PERC/2. Anybody know what his system is comprised of? Those are similar to the numbers I got on Windows ME with my X15 and my Adaptec 29160, but mine were slightly more consistent.
  8. Hello everyone, I may be a little late finding this forum and particular Thread but I thought I would thro in my 2cents. After chating with Bob at Seagate (considered to be the resident hot dog on scsi and fibre channel) he has informed me to visit this thread to see if I could find anything to help me improve my performance of my own X15 although he has told me that my results appear to be excelent to him (althouth its much better in ME) So, instead of coming here and getting advice I will give it. First off I think most of you (a nicely as I can put this) is not installing Windows XP in the manner it should be installed particular to your system specifications and usage. Windows XP is designed and balanced for the abilty to install into as many configurations as possible and thus doing so makes it ready for the WORLD and not particularly for you and your machine. If you want Windows, Motherboards, Hard Drives, and other devices and Apps to run on YOUR machine the way YOU would like it too their are steps you MUST take in order to get the perfect balance between Performance and Stability. After setting up my BIOS and Installing Windows XP "MY WAY" and doing nearly 3 hours of Windows Optimizing I can say my 1.53Ghz Athlon XP PC would beat ANY P4 2.2Ghz that is installed in the normal manner with bios and windows at default settings...ect! Why? Its because of how and what I did before, during and after the installation that makes the system Highly tuned for my purposes. In order for all of us to get the same results we must have the same exact system, windows, drivers and installation methods...ect, but we don't we all have diferent Machines and methods of doing things and that explains most of everything I have seen in this forum. Is there a SCSI issue with my machine running Windows XP with ATTO??? Look Below. Yes, exactly where it should be for the 2nd Generation X15 under Windows XP. I must say it was higher in both 98 and ME but I would not use those Operating Systems ever again after such a "HUGH" UI and Stabilty Improvement like XP introduced. This test was performed 6 times with the results being nearly identicle each time. I don't see anything wrong with my SCSI under XP, do you? The numbers could be a little higher to really make me happy but thats the price I pay for using WinXP. And, one last thing to anybody with a similar system could you PLEASE post your ATTO or HD Tach results so we can compare because I think I can get more from this drive but need more reference points to compare too. Also I will share everything I did to get my SCSI system to run this good on XP after more research has been completed and posted. The Test Bed: Windows XP Home (Installed and Optimized My Way) Asus A7V266-E (bios 1007) AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1544mhz 256 Mb High Perf, Mushkin PC2100 Seagate X15 Cheatah ST318452LW on Adaptec 29160N