Cobra Chi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Cobra Chi

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Blacksburg, VA
  1. Cobra Chi

    Why does my SCSI drives Defragment so slow?

    Oh yah, if it's any consolation, when it comes to WD1200JB (IDE) drive is a slow horrible pig compared to my Atlas. Maybe you should try using Diskeeper Pro 9 for your defragging. CC
  2. Cobra Chi

    Why does my SCSI drives Defragment so slow?

    I think Olaf is on the 'write track'......hahaha.....nice pun huh? Anyway, when I used M$'s "diskcache" tool to turn off the power protect feature (which thereby GREATLY increases write performance in some applications)......the defrag speed of my Atlas 15k increased by a SUBSTANTIAL amount. After applying this tool, just keep your fingers crossed that the power doesn't go out while you're defragging, b/c you may lose the chunks of data which was being rewritten to the disk. CC
  3. As continuum stated, the LSI is inexpensive, but is actually a fantastic card. Save your money and buy the LSI. CC
  4. Anders, in your original question, you asked for a % difference. You need not look any further than the SR performance database, and make a comparison of the two drives (as seen here). The % difference in single user performance can be easily calculated. In the SR Office Benchmark, the Atlas 15K II wins by the SR High-End Benchmark, the Atlas 15K II wins by the Boot-up Benchmark, the Atlas 15K II wins by the Gaming Benchmark, the Atlas 15K II wins by 18%.........the Atlas has a 15% sustained transfer rate advantage, and a 32% seek time advantage. If you ask me, this is a SIGNIFICANT difference in desktop performance, with the Atlas obviously being the faster drive. I do in fact think you would be able to tell a difference, especially with the feel and snappiness of the system. As continuum stated, this is mainly due to the seek times. I previously had a 74GB Raptor at one time, then had a 15k.3, but now have an Atlas 15K (1st generation). Many people here will disagree with me, but there is no way you can convince me that the 74GB Raptor is as fast as the original Atlas 15K. People might say "well, the SR benchmarks tell a different story when you compare the Raptor to the Atlas 15K" (as seen here). However, in my experience with the two drives, the Atlas 15K is definitely a faster drive. After using an Atlas 15K, there is NO WAY I would go back to the Raptor. My system feels much quicker and snappier with the Atlas. It goes without saying that the Atlas 15K II would be even better. It really depends on how much you are willing to spend for the extra performance. CC
  5. Oh yah, I forgot to mention........Ericg.......some systems are not affected by the SCSI bug (which is perhaps whey your MAM is not affected), and nobody on this forum was ever really able to figure out why. If you feel brave, then you can dig thru this old thread for more info: Get your dangerous XP Cache Filter here CC
  6. Ericg, if you read Microsoft's links above, they don't list Win2k SP5 as being affected (although, they don't list SP4, and I thought SP4 WAS affected?). Simply enabling write cache does not fix the issue in WinXP. However, nanyangview, if you are now happy with your write speeds, then if I were you......I wouldn't mess around with using the dskcache tool. CC
  7. Oh yah, forgot to mention, apply the dskcache tool "at your own risk". More information on M$'s dskcache tool can be found here: Slow Disk Performance When Write Caching Is Enabled ......and here: Obtain the Dskcache.exe Tool to Configure the "Power Protected" Write Cache Option Good luck, CC
  8. First of all, what OS are you using? If you are using Windows XP Pro or Win2k SP3 (or later), then your slow copy issue is related to what is known by some SR forum users as the "XP SCSI Bug". There have been several insanely large threads on this forum related to this issue, but your best bet is to read Chew's informative write-up found here in the FAQ section. You must use Microsoft's "Dskcache" tool to correct the issue, and if you are using Win XP, then you need to make sure you have installed SP2 first (it won't work with SP1). The only catch is, if your computer loses power during the transfer of files (or perhaps during disk usage), then there is a high likelyhood that you will lose data. Make sure your computer is extremely stable before applying the patch (ie.....make sure it doesn't lock up often), and make sure you have a UPS battery back-up in case the power goes off. Keep in mind, the "XP SCSI Bug" only affects certain programs and utilities (Chew explains all this in the link above)......but MOST definitely affects the transfer rates from moving large files from partition to partition, or from drive to drive. Applying this patch will get your write speeds back up to normal, and in my case, brings back the "snappiness" feel associated with high-end SCSI drives. Hope this helps. CC
  9. Hahhh......silly me......the last sentence of one of your previous posts reads: "And I've attempted to address the question of whether this is relevant to IDE RAID controllers, etc." When I read it, I must have quickly scanned through that sentence, b/c in my head it read something like "And I'm attempting to address the question of whether this is relevant to IDE RAID controllers, etc" (ie....meaning that your going to further investigate how the dskcache tool effects different RAID controllers/chips). A little miscommunication on my part. CC
  10. Chew, Thanks for the heads-up regarding IDE drives and the dskcache tool. I was previously only aware of how it affects SCSI drives. After fully re-reading the M$ article, I see now what you are talking about. Please post your findings regarding how the dskcache tool effects IDE would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, CC PS - Also, thanks for updating the FAQ section, since the dskcache tool is a very welcomed fix for SCSI users.
  11. Huh??? Do you mean ATA RAID? The dskcache application is designed for SCSI devices, not ATA or SATA. It should not be working for your ATA drive, unless you are using ATA RAID (since windows recognizes an ATA RAID card/chip as a SCSI device in the device manager). Stevo and Krusher, I'm glad it worked for you. Linuxrulz, it must be something to do with your RAID settings, b/c the dskcache application worked on EVERY single computer with SCSI or SCSI RAID that I've tried it with. I'm very surprised that people aren't doing backflips over the release of dskcache.exe from M$......which is a fix to a problem that was giving so many people headaches, and was such a hot topic at one time. If I remember correctly, there were three different threads that exceded 5-6 pages (including this thread, which is 7 pages). I'm 'guessing' that people in this forum must have given up on SCSI b/c of these write issues, and switched to Raptor's. Of course, I can't blame them......since Raptor's were cheaper, and ran neck and neck with 15k SCSI drives (of the last generation) in some benchmarks. Since the new generation of SCSI drives (namely the Maxtor Atlas 15K II and Fujitsu MAU) completely obliterated the Raptor in SR's tests, I would be hard pressed to believe that hardcore enthusiasts (who are willing to spend the money) would choose the Raptor over these new 15K SCSI drives......especially since there is now a fix for the write issues. Hmmmm.......I wonder if Western Digital is working on a new version of the Raptor? Hey Eugene and/or Chew, you need to update the FAQ topic related to "What performance problems exist using SCSI drives with Windows? "......since this issue appears to have been addressed by Microsoft. CC
  12. Oh yah, I think I remember some of you ATA RAID folks out there being affected by the XP bug (ie....low write scores), since XP lists ATA RAID cards as a SCSI device in the device manager. I wonder if the hotfix will work for you guys? CC PS - remember, using this hotfix.....a power failure will most likely result in data loss. I highly recommend a UPS battery backup.
  13. Hey Krusher, That is the tool I'm referring to. It definitely works for XP SP2. It was released by Microsoft to allow one to change the power protect feature of Win2k SP3. I didn't have any success with it when I tried to apply it to XP SP1.......but it has worked on every XP SP2 machine I've tried. Funny thing is, MS's documentation is very confusing when it comes to this tool. In addition, I think they "might" have changed the wording in these documents since XP SP2 was released (If my memory serves me wrong folks, please don't hesitate to correct me). First, the Slow Disk Performance When Write Caching Is Enabled article states: Before SP2 was released, I'm pretty sure it didn't used to say "A similar fix is also included in Windows XP". But in the same article, they state: A contradiction of words maybe? If they did in fact change the wording of these articles after SP2 was released, then they should have nixed that statement. In the next article Obtain the Dskcache.exe Tool to Configure the "Power Protected" Write Cache Option it states: Funny, I don't remember that XP blurb being there before SP2 was released. They go on to say: I remember people emailing MS about this, and MS first claimed that they 'might' fix it in SP2, but other people have said that MS stated that they do not plan to fix this with XP......only win2k. At the bottom of all these articles, there is a section to show which operating systems the hotfix applies to. Call me crazy, but I don't remember XP being listed in any of these sections before SP2 was released. Finally, in the article List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2 we see "811392 Obtain the Dskcache.exe Tool to Configure the Power Protected Write Cache Option" being listed. So there ya go......they did in fact include it with SP2. This contradicts what they said before about "there are currently no plans to release a supported update for this behavior for Windows XP." They kinda just slipped it in there, then "perhaps" changed the wording of some articles to cover their tracks. I think it's a conspiracy ......hahaha.....just kidding. I really don't care if those articles are a little confusing or misleading......I'm just glad they finally gave us an option to fix the bug. CC
  14. Although, I'll have to admit, after applying the applications defininetly feel MUCH snappier, my computers boot faster, and transferring files across drives is now AMAZING!!! CC
  15. Hey Eugene, I would definitely have to agree. After I thought about it for a second, my inclination was that the fix won't help SCSI drive scores with SR's benchmarks, since we are talking about "accesses" via WinTrace32 captures. The XP SCSI bug only effects writes, not reads......therefore, there would be no differences in benchmark scores after the fix was applied. Cobra Chi