crap sata performance - maybe....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul Gunson
  • Start date Start date
P

Paul Gunson

i just built my new Athlon64 3200+, its really fast :) i benchmarked
the sustained Xfer rate of the 2 hard drives with Rextest
(http://www.canopus.com/US/products/free_utilities/pm_free_utilities.asp#rextest)

the system disk is a 36GB raptor, 10,000rpm, the 2nd disk is a WD80GB,
7,200rpm.

disk 2 reports average read and write of 39MB/s. system disk reports
average read of 3.8MB/s (!!) and average write of 5.6MB/s (!!). why is
my system disk so crap...? surface scan revealed no bad sectors, i've
defragged. i have a gig ram, 512MB swap file (i realise this is small
for swap but i thought with a gig ram it would b enough).

things seem pretty responsive... could it be that Rextest doesn't work
well with SATA drives... having said that there's a lot of continued
disk access after bootup so i'm not sure if there is a problem or
not.... any tips apprec. i'm using win2K, SP4, both disks about a
quarter full, NTFS, default 4KB clusters.

Motherbaord is an Albatron K8X800 ProII (VIA). SATA mode in the bios had
2 options, RAID (default) and IDE so i chose IDE, thinking it would be
the correct one because i don't have RAID. i hope it was correct...
 
Rita said:
You made two major blunders of choosing AMD and not using U320 SCSI
Click to expand...
drives.

dear retard,

for what i need it for (single processor 3D workstation) in my
particular app the FPU performance of the AMD64 kicks a P4 or Xeon's arse.

secondly, considering it s single user environment, and i'm not doing
video editing, high resolution imaging or uncompressed playback, why
should i pay 3 or 4 times as much for U320? unless i was a retard like you?
 
drives.

dear retard,

for what i need it for (single processor 3D workstation) in my
particular app the FPU performance of the AMD64 kicks a P4 or Xeon's arse.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take your word for it if it makes you feel better.

secondly, considering it s single user environment, and i'm not doing
video editing, high resolution imaging or uncompressed playback, why
should i pay 3 or 4 times as much for U320? unless i was a retard like
Click to expand...
you?



Your main reason for not getting Intel and U320 is that you would be afraid
of getting a system that actually works. Apparently, you have found out the
hard way that you just built a toy or you wouldn't be posting here about
your failure.



Rita
 
Rita said:
Your main reason for not getting Intel and U320 is that you would be afraid
of getting a system that actually works. Apparently, you have found out the
hard way that you just built a toy or you wouldn't be posting here about
your failure.
Click to expand...

well actually i own several Intel and AMD workstations, so i have
compared them all.... and i know which is faster. as for the SATA issue
its a config problem that will be resolved - what probly can't be
resolved is your ****ed up little head. get a life dude seriously.
 
Paul Gunson said:
well actually i own several Intel and AMD workstations, so i have
compared them all.... and i know which is faster. as for the SATA issue
its a config problem that will be resolved - what probly can't be
resolved is your ****ed up little head. get a life dude seriously.
Click to expand...

Ok, keep telling yourself that you have a real computer and maybe one day
you will actually have one. For the life of me, I still wonder why anyone
would even buy AMD, other than using it for a child's toy.

Rita
 
For the life of me, I still wonder why anyone would
even buy AMD, other than using it for a child's toy.
Click to expand...

Those wanting 4-8x Opteron + multi-GB of Ram + 15.3k-rpm
SCSI or cheapy10k-rpm SATA for dbase servers at a good price.

o Storage price wise U320 SCSI is pretty horrible & big cables
---- length is on its side in terms of better routing, good backplanes
o However 2.5" 10,000rpm are here soon with good density
---- SAS is also due soon, offering decent drive # chains cheaply
---- not everyone wants/needs 3ware 8/12-port RAID cards

I'd agree the SATA connector which serial SCSI will share is not
the greatest design re size, profile & physical retention. It's crap.

S-ATA seems to be best implemented on 10,000rpm Raptor drives
which also have a decent 5yr warranty - and less well on 7200rpm.
That said, performance data sounds overly poor - might be worth
testing the 7200rpm SATA drive on its own & benchmarking that.

I'd also get a second opinion on the benchmarking s/w :-)
 
Ok, keep telling yourself that you have a real computer and maybe one day
you will actually have one. For the life of me, I still wonder why anyone
would even buy AMD, other than using it for a child's toy.

Rita
Click to expand...


You obviously have a very narrow mind and a closed brain.

Perhaps 10 years ago your statement would have held water; nowadays,
however, your infantile dig is rather stale. More fool you.

This is 2004. Get a life.

Odie
 
SATA is relatively new, and drivers/BIOS version are fluid.

Well worth checking them regularly especially for SATA RAID
if Promise/Highpoint - somewhat less rugged than 3ware solutions.
 
Back
Top