vltk

Member
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vltk

  1. Keith Davies the chief of the Find-a-Drug project can give us detail answers about aspects of the project. When I posted to F-a-D forum about Storage Review community trying to find the most interesting and useful project he wrote: Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:20 pm Post subject: "On occasions with other teams, I have visited their forums to answer specific questions as well as answer extended e-mail questionaires. I am quite happy to do so again although I do not make unsolicitated posts because this might be badly received as promoting a DC project. Perhaps the best approach is if Vladimir posted the essence of this post. _________________ PS I'm the guy in charge of Find-a-Drug (This means I take all the blame and give all the credit to others)" So we need only make questions about details of project and reasons to go with him
  2. With great pleasure. But to this moment I contribute more then 6 years to F-a-D project. And I registered in Ukraine team also. But in a week I will finished my bareborn Shuttle 45G (Athlon XP3200 based device) and can put it to work with Storage Review team.
  3. You may not be in need to choose beetween projects. You can take part in different projecrs simultaneously, as people do at Xtreme PC Central (SETI, RC5 and F-a-D) http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/foru....php?forumid=46 and at TechIMO, where we have (F-a-D, UD, ECCR, SETI) http://www.techimo.com/forum/f17/index.html Need to mention that F-a-D and UD have same priorities and deviding CPU time by half.
  4. Here alternative www.find-a-drug project. The guy in charge of the project is Keith Davies, scientist and programmer of THINK device. It was used at first stage of UD project. I have more then five years experience in taking part in UD project. Now calculative part of the new THINK is 40 times quicker then Ligand in UD. Very high degree of openness compare to UD. All F&D community consist of very intelligent and clever people. Many of them are system administrators. And reasons why F-a-D you can find here http://forum.find-a-drug.com/viewtopic.php?t=1013 English is not my native language that why it difficult to me to explain details. Please browser their pages and the forum.
  5. Read this http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic....49f3fff88c41927
  6. The first file is invalid archiv. And both files 023, 392 seem's for W2k. Do you have something forXP. Much thanks.
  7. Sorry Chew for asking. Can you post them to me also. If can please post to my e-mail ISAvltky@yahoo.co.uk Delete old interface from the beginning of my mail. Much thanks in advance.
  8. I registered for MS CD Windows Server 2003 two week ago. One week ago I send to them mail asking about my matter. Receive nothing in reply. Only need to add that it’s Moscow department of MS. May be rules become new but people habits quickly don’t change. I can’t have disk system files from the net also. All RC2 versions placed on FTP is in one big ~600MB archive file. I don’t have broad band. Can somebody who have installed or not Windows Server 2003 RC2 build 3718, 3742 or better last 3757 send to me the next files, total approximately~3Mb (if taken not archived files from installed Server 2003) or more than twice less when taken from i386 folder of uninstalled Server. So file names and folders from where to take them from. Windows, WinNT, NT, NET SERVER=Root. RootHelp – diskcons.chm, diskmgms.hlp, diskmgts.chm RootInf – disk.inf, scsi.inf, scsidev.inf RootSystem32 – diskcomp.com, diskcopy.com, diskcopy.dll, diskmgmt.msc, diskpart.exe, diskperf.exe, perfc009.dat, perfd009.dat, perfdisk.dll, perfh009.dat, perfi009.dat, storprov.dll RootSystem32Drivers – ataboot.sys, atapi.sys, crcdisk.sys, disk.sys, diskdump.sys, ftdisk.sys, partmgr.sys, pciide.sys, pciidex.sys, ramdisk.sys, rsfilter.sys, scsiport.sys If somebody ready to help please post to my e-mail ISAvltky@yahoo.co.uk (if knew name the build number of Server version). Delete old interface from the beginning of my mail. Much thanks in advance.
  9. I explained why I leave NTFS partition and go for FAT32 in above mentioned thread – to no need to bother about NTFS files indexes, files meta data, journaling files system. I only want to see correct implementation of write back cache for all application and OS copy machine for both FAT32 and NTFS. Can only add that for the home (non corporate) user with SCSI or IDE system disk less then 40Mb FAT32 partition will be quicker and much more manageable. As for me NTFS separately have nothing in itself to decide above mentioned problem – very low disk to self copying SCSI throughput on NT core OS. It may be because of absence of the integrity of all transactions via disk cache, adapter cache and system cache forward and back (writes and reads) in the case of system disk-to-self copying for all application that ought to give you right performance.
  10. What do you think? I have FAT32 with XP on both SCSI & IDE disks. Do OS use FUA command in this case or not? My SCSI 15K drive write performance sucks with FAT32 also. So my OS don’t need to maintain metadata coherency BUT only MS want that we all go to Dynamic disks with NTFS. Why so? It’s very big difference between tasks of WEB server, Database server and Work station. I want to have at home SCSI based work station with maximum possible disk performance. Only owner of this PC (not MS) ought to decide use or not to use IDE or SCSI, power backup, define percentage of task where he need good STR or better access time, en. or dis. write-back cache, what kind of firewall, antivirus software to use and so on. So I want from MS choice. Why give this choice for IDE case but not for SCSI? Maybe MS looking forward for SATA corporate disk systems I really don’t know. But new SP2 for XP will be closer to the end of this year. I put all disk system (18files) from Windows .NET Server RC1 to my XP pro but received the same picture – SCSI write disk to self performance sucks. Somebody I think Tex wrote about additional option in Window NET Server 2003 RC2 to enable really SCSI write-back cache. At this moment I trying to find RC2 files and substitute all disk I/O system in my XP pro. But if it will give nothing what to do – go back to W98 or wait for GUI improvement of Linux? Want to add – nothing personal against MS. Company have complete rights to define their strategic policy. Details of my system, my tests and other comments about this issue in this tread http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic....r=asc&highlight
  11. vltk

    Denial of service attacks today

    Drug for those who need it. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7419
  12. vltk

    Denial of service attacks today

    Mmmm, it's been going for a while http://average.matrix.net/
  13. This filter only for WinXP not for W98 or W2K. Save or copy XPCacheFiolter.exe to some folder. Then Run - Programs - Accessories - Command Promt - Enter. Under back box try what wrote above. That's all.
  14. You need to wright under Command Promt FULL pass to XPCacheFilter, something as c:DownloadFolderXPCacheFilter -e then push Enter & read all above instructions of Cas again and more attantively.
  15. Have the same adapter. When tried to compare disk to self throughput between XP & W2K Ser have the same one problem. I use latest Adaptec driver for WinXP and it was suitable for W2K. Hope this will help.
  16. Test also copying with XP native xcopy command with different switches. Use it from the command prompt. SCSI: C:! to C:=2m13s (~7.7Mb/s) – without switch. C:! to C:=2m25s (~7.1Mb/s) – with /v switch. V-verify destin. file’s identity to source file. C:! to C:=2m23s (~7.2Mb/s) – with /c switch. C-ignore coping mistakes. Seems that verifying of destination file don’t drastically hits throughput when you using XP xcopy. Switch /v of DOS copy, xcopy commands mean in former times verifying each file as it is written to destination file to make sure that the destination files are identical to the source files. Cas, do cascopy have some default flags for verifying/ignoring destination file’s integrity or not?
  17. I measured throughput with memory utilized for system cache (default checked for applications). And have interesting results. Nothing change copying 1Gb file with cascopy. But I receive much better results for SCSI and sufficiently better results for IDE throughput with explorer. File copying with Explorer. SCSI: C:! to C:=3m04s (~5.6Mb/s) – Application checked (was). C:! to C:=2m16s (~7.5Mb/s) – System cache checked (now). IDE: D:! to D:=2m25s (~7.1Mb/s) – Application checked (was). D:! to D:=1m56s (~8.8Mb/s) - System cache checked (now). File copying with Cascopy – for comparing. C:! to C:=38s (~26.9Mb/s) D:! to D:=72s (~14.2Mb/s) Again 7200 IDE disk quicker then 15K.3 SCSI one. But both results improved. ATTO results improved also. SCSI W=R=59.4Mb/s compare to former 58.7Mb/s IDE W=R=35.5Mb/s compare to former 33.0Mb/s Before each test I made restart to clean memory and system cache (have OS swapping disabled). Cas, I consciously choose FAT32 partition for both SCSI and IDE disks. So I don’t need to bother about NTFS files indexes, files meta data, journaling files system I only want to see correct implementation of write back cache for all application and OS copy machine. Maintaining integrity of all transactions via disk cache, adapter cache and system cache forward and back (writes and reads) in case of system disk-to-self copying for all application ought to give me right performance. CXPF.sys – make it for me only for ATTO, but how to make it now for other applications and OS copying. First of all I need it for the case of disk to self copying. If I can help you in some “Beta” testing, you need only to ask. And many other peoples will help you also.
  18. Tried to enable WinXP swaping and test with swap file on disk c: and dick d:. Have the same results as without swapping.
  19. I really don't know. Without having independently confirmed the issue, I would guess that differences in the way requests were broken up in the disk or port drivers, could have some effect on the number of seeks required for a disk to self copy. You may want to try cascopy to set a baseline. Test with cascopy. It’s really amazing. Look at the results: WinXPpro Cascopy and Exploer (SCSI) C:! to C:=38s (~26.9Mb/s) C:! to C:=3m04s (~5.6Mb/s)-Cascopy 4.5 times quicker (IDE) D:! to D:=72s (~14.2Mb/s) D:! to D:=2m25s (~7.1Mb/s)-Cascopy 2.0 times quicker D: to C: =32s (~31.5Mb/s) D: to C: =34s (~30.8Mb/s)-near equal Now copying with cascopy we at last have normal ratio for C:/D:=26.9/14.2~1.9 throughput. But how to implement this into WinXP copying mechanism.
  20. Please put any usual dvd.vob file 1Gb=1024Mb (1073741824bite) long to say bootable SCSI XP disk into C:1 directory. Then restart. After this copy the same file to root of this same disk. So my interest is for copies made to the same drive they originate from. Measure time of copying and calculate throughput (C:1 to C: =3m04s (1024M/184s~5.6Mb/s)-terrible in my case). Then repeat the same with XP swapping disabled (disable swap file–put it equal to=0). After this repeat it with NET.server with and without checked advanced performance. Presuming you boot from NET.server on SCSI disk. Hope I not ask for to much.
  21. Happy New Year for all in this forum! Much thanks for your Cas, you made a good work. At last it works for me. My ATTO scores W=R=58700 from 8 to 1024Kb. So now judging from ATTO we have normal (to be more accurate - equal to W2000) writes with blocks from 0.5 to 1024kb testing with 32Mb file under WinXP. After testing with ATTO I tried with my dvd.vob file disk-to-self copying. And again have (the same as before) much worse (bigger time copying) results for *.vob file copying for SCSI 15K disk compare to 7200 IDE disk. WinXPpro C:! to C:=3m07s (~5.5Mb/s) D:! to D:=2m13s (~7.9Mb/s) – pay attention, 7200 IDE disk 1.4 times quicker then 15.3 SCSI one. C: to D: =36s (~28.4Mb/s) So driver didn’t solve general problem – terrible disk-to-self file transfer SCSI performance compare to IDE under all Win NT cores. At last for the big (bigger then or 32Mb) continuous files. Don’t tell me that this is not very frequent case. All disk-to-self unraring, mpg4 and mpg3 encoding, video capture will suffer from this. I want to remind shortly part of my former results for different OS before implying Cas filter. W2000 and DOS7. W2K installed without SP on IDE disk, but with all latest chipset, AGP and devices drivers. DOS7(W98SE-command.com) installed on bootable diskette with himem.sys, Emm386.exe, smartdrive.exe /X /L 2048 2048 enabled in config.sys and autoexec.bat, the file manager - Volkov Commander (analog of Norton Commander) that include very general drivers for SCSI and IDE. For DOS tests I don’t make restarts and defragmentation after each copying, get tired. The rest details of my setup you can see above at this page. ATTO SCSI drive results for W2K after installing it on IDE disk – Writes ~ 40Mb/s(curve with slope) and Reads ~ 56Mb/s. Results don’t change after installing of 4in1 VIA’s driver. Nothing changed after installing VIA’s Raid patch. But after installing of GB Latency Patch v.020 beta throughput increase for Writes to ~ 59.3 Mb/s and for Reads to ~ 59.4 Mb/s with straight curve from 4 to 1024Kb. ATTO was used with default parameters except file testing length set to 32Mb. So we come to ideal picture that people have testing performance for SCSI file transfer under W2K before installing SP3( I don’t do anything with different SP’s because don’t have them). Now look at the “real life” test results with 1Gb dvd.vob. To remind, disk C: - SCSI, disk D: - IDE. OS is always on a bootable disk. WinXPpro C:! to C:=3m04s (~5.6Mb/s) D:! to D:=2m25s (~7.1Mb/s) – pay attention,7200 IDE disk quicker then 15.3 SCSI one. D: to C: =34s (~30.8Mb/s) – throughput only limited by velocity of sequential read of IDE disk. Win2000pro C:! to C:=3m14s (~5.3Mb/s) D:! to D:=2m14s (~6.7Mb/s) – pay attention,7200 IDE disk quicker then 15.3 SCSI one. D: to C: =39s (~27.2Mb/s) DOS, floppy boot. C:! to C:=1m33s (~11.0Mb/s) D:! to D:=2m25s (~7.1Mb/s) – VICE VERSA and CORRECT. 7200 IDE disk slower then 15.3 SCSI one. D: to C: =53s (~19.3Mb/s) I don’t see any drops in read-write SCSI performance under WinXPpro for disk to disk file transfer data. The other peoples file transfer results from one SCSI 15K disk to another SCSI 15K disk attached to two separate SCSI adapters, to two independent channels of one adapter or in worst case to one channel of adapter don’t have any performance hits. For the test of SCSI one disk file transfer (disk-to-self ) anyone can find out that results will be 3-5 times worse then for disk to disk file transfer under any windows operation systems (understandable – disk’s head cannot simultaneously read and write plus separate time needed for head’s positioning). The same for IDE. In general WinXP make SCSI disk-to-self operation quicker then W2K. But both systems terribly slow compare to the same for IDE disk-to-self file transfer. But in real we have in 1.5 time worse throughput for SCSI 15K disk compare to IDE 7.2K one. And in DOS case with non specific very general SCSI driver we have throughput near 2 times better for disk-to-self SCSI file transfer (compare to WinXP) and 1.55 times better then disk-to-self IDE file transfer. It is possible that in SCSI case MS sacrifice with performance of “not often utilized operation” self-to-disk BIG file copying (bigger then 1Mb) on NT core + I/O interface in name of security, reliability and ets. But if we have user with only one big SCSI disk it will be for him “very often utilized” class of operations. I add Sandra’s results. They quite normal for test file 1023Mb and sequential reads and writes. Sandra’s Pro details for SCSI disk (Cas filter don’t have any affect on them for me): Windows Disk Cache Used : No Use Overlapped I/O : Yes Command Queue Depth : 4 command(s) Test File Size : 1023MB File Server Optimized : No Benchmark Breakdown Buffered Read : 94 MB/s Sequential Read : 56 MB/s Random Read : 13 MB/s Buffered Write : 53 MB/s Sequential Write : 56 MB/s Random Write : 19 MB/s Average Access Time : 4 ms (estimated) It’s very simple to check these results for all who have at last one SCSI and one IDE disk. Cas, what do you think about all this. Is it possible to write some fix to make disk.sys behave the same for SCSI as for IDE foer disk-to-self copying. Or may be you have some other ideas. What think about this MS – all WinXP (W2000, possible NT) SCSI users suffer from this from the very begin of existing of these OS. And what can tell us MS – reliability by expense of performance or what?
  22. Tex, can you check and tell us the time of SCSI disk-to-self copying of dvd.vob (1024Mb) file from some simple folder to the root of the disk under NET.server with checked advanced performance.
  23. Don’t help. The same BSOD. More over now I can’t load the driver to make it be a part of the storage stack. Don’t see it under Non-Plug and Play Drivers. Coping XPCF.sys driver into system32dllcache folder didn’t help with new driver. Cas, but what is your WinXP-SCSI system configuration? May be it will be possible for me to change my configuration making it closer to yours.
  24. Cas wrote, vltk wrote: Nope. After added the service entries to the registry and only in case of coping XPCacheFilter.sys to the system32dllcache folder I can load the driver (sow it in the Device Manager under Non-Plug and Play Drivers). But after rebooting WinXPpro hang with above mentioned code. You added the service entries, but not the LowerFilters entry, and got a 0x7B? Without the LowerFilters entry, there is nothing to associate the filter with the boot device, so this doesn't make very much sense. Not so. Of course I added LowerFilters then reboot and have 0x7B.
  25. Windows BSOD Err. Code 0x0000007B=123 mean “The file name, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.”