EBB

Wd740gd Ps Sluggard

Recommended Posts

Maybe soem of the boig brians out there can help me figure this out. Why is the WD 10K drive so slow as hte PS scratch diks? I don ot mean to imply that is absolutely slow, but the 15K.3 at least as much faster as a typical IDe drive (DM+9, WD250JB, etc.) is slower. The revelant system info is as follows.

P4 3.2MHz w/2GB PC3200 ECC on ASUA p4C800E-Deluxe, Win2K.

I tried the 10K WD ddrive on the southbrodge port, on the onbroad Promise RAID controller and also on a separte PCi cadr (also Promise). Sadly, esults are anbout the same no matter which is utilized. Low level test results of the 10K drive are typcal in transfer rate, access times and PCU ulization compared t the SR reviews.

Any ideas, theoretcial or practicakl would be very much appreciated.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting from the most stupid, defragment policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starting from the most stupid, defragment policy?

Does PS have a defragmentation policy for teh scratch disk? I never heard of such a thing. I think each file is 2GB max, then another file is created. When PS closes they are deleted, so there is no fragmentation.

Defiler,

Thanks, I sent a PM.

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are fragmented if they get fragmented when they are written.

Are you using scratch files and page file on the same disk? If you can't do it all with memory (physical and page) then try reducing or eliminating your page file and just using scratch for PS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhpas I was not clear, as the post was on a worse than usaul finger day. But it was specific. Why does the WD 10K drive perform so poorly compared to a 15k.3 when used as the PS scratch disk, all else being equal?

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that does not go to explain how it is slower, only that you think it is slower. it also does not provide any information on how one could attempt to reproduce your results.

i think the only answer anyone could give you given the information you provided is that 'it performs poorly because you think it does'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that does not go to explain how it is slower, only that you think it is slower.

Good grief. How can one define slower except in terms of time? :blink: For example, if a single operation that thrashes the scratch disk hard takes 2 minutes with one drive compared to 2.5 minutes with another drive, then the latter is slower. The issue is apparent in virtaully any operation where the scratch disk significantly exceeds the available RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief.  How can one define slower except in terms of time?  :blink:

good grief, you didn't provide specific measurements of time. have you actually done repeated, timed runs comparing 2 different disks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have you actually done repeated, timed runs comparing 2 different disks?

Yes. Several hours were already consumed on this issue. Three different procedures were utilized, each with n=5. In each case the %RSD5 values for both the WD 10K drive and the 15k.3 were ~1%. The variances were so small and equal that there was really no point in running ANOVA, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the basic question here why is the 10 K WD slower than the 15.3 K seagate in this Scatch disc issue(s). We'll here are a few answers. Firstly, 5000 more rpms, TCQ on the scsi unit, also scsi has a much better ability to handle higher I/O counts with it's MATURE features. The WD is good for really high I/O for the desktop(s) environment. But I have a feeling that (and others can agree), the Scratch disc is best utilized and best used on a SCSI platform vs. any ATA (of any) standard --> SATA or PATA!!!...

SCSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the cause, there is nothing practical to be done. In Narch I will replace The WD with an IDE Seagato 200 GB. It will be no trouble finding a home for the 10K doggy drive - someone already wants it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now