hd performance

[HankG]

Judging by the problems some have been having with Maxtor drives, this is
very minor.

My drive, a Maxtor 4a250j0 works and doesn't have any inherent problems. I
originally bought a computer (HP) which had a 7200 rmp drive which really
made the computer fast as lightning. Unfortunately, the computer had a
problem and I had to return it.

I was given a new computer which, unfortunately had the above drive (5400
rpm) installed (they sneaked it by me). The new computer's processor is
110% as fast as the former, but with this drive, the overall performance
lags some.

I've been looking for hardware/software tweaks to make up the shortfall. I
used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

Strangely, the computer is only a year old, but the drive is not listed on
Maxtor's site. I've been trying to locate information as to how to force
UDMA 6 operation. Checking in Device Manager, there is only one option
available (UDMA 5). The only information I've been able to come up with
involves screwing with the registry, which I am reluctant to do.

Can any of the resident experts advise what determines the mode of operation
or offer any suggestions? The computer is a P-4, 3.07 Ghz, with 1 GB of
ram. Thanks for any suggestions.

HankG

 

[Shep©]

Judging by the problems some have been having with Maxtor drives, this is
very minor.

Never had a problem with any Maxtor drivess.Hmmm...

My drive, a Maxtor 4a250j0 works and doesn't have any inherent problems. And?



I was given a new computer which, unfortunately had the above drive (5400
rpm) installed (they sneaked it by me). The new computer's processor is
110%

110% is impossible.

as fast as the former, but with this drive, the overall performance
lags some.

That's most likely user error.

I've been looking for hardware/software tweaks to make up the shortfall. I
used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html
http://www.sysinfo.org/startupinfo.html



Strangely, the computer is only a year old, but the drive is not listed on
Maxtor's site. I've been trying to locate information as to how to force
UDMA 6 operation.

Does the drive support UDMA6?

Checking in Device Manager, there is only one option
available (UDMA 5). The only information I've been able to come up with
involves screwing with the registry, which I am reluctant to do.

Can any of the resident experts advise what determines the mode of operation
or offer any suggestions?

The hard drive.

Also,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=4a250j0&btnG=Google+Search


--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email (e-mail address removed)
Free songs to download and,"BURN" :O)
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Judging by the problems some have been having with Maxtor drives, this is
very minor.

Few have been having trouble with Maxtor drives in general.

My drive, a Maxtor 4a250j0 works and doesn't have any inherent problems. I
originally bought a computer (HP) which had a 7200 rmp drive which really
made the computer fast as lightning. Unfortunately, the computer had a
problem and I had to return it.

I was given a new computer which, unfortunately had the above drive (5400
rpm)

A performance killer.

installed (they sneaked it by me). The new computer's processor is
110% as fast as the former, but with this drive, the overall performance
lags some.

I've been looking for hardware/software tweaks to make up the shortfall. I
used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

Makes no difference.

 

[Mike Walsh]

Judging by the problems some have been having with Maxtor drives, this is
very minor.

My 3 1/2 year old Maxtor drive has worked perfectly.

My drive, a Maxtor 4a250j0 works and doesn't have any inherent problems. I
originally bought a computer (HP) which had a 7200 rmp drive which really
made the computer fast as lightning. Unfortunately, the computer had a
problem and I had to return it.

I was given a new computer which, unfortunately had the above drive (5400
rpm) installed (they sneaked it by me). The new computer's processor is
110% as fast as the former, but with this drive, the overall performance
lags some.

I've been looking for hardware/software tweaks to make up the shortfall. I
used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

The only way you will see any improvement with UDMA 6 over UDMA 5 is if you have two very fast drives.

--

When replying by Email include NewSGrouP (case sensitive) in Subject

Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

 

[HankG]

110% is impossible.

Let's review some math. My old box ran at 2.8 Ghz. If my new one ran at
the same speed, it would be running at 100% of the speed of the old. Since
it runs at 3.07, the difference in speed is (3.07-2.8 or .27 divided by the
speed of the original [2.8] equals .0964 rounded to .10 for convenience.
This added to the speed of the original (100%) equals 110.

That's most likely user error.

Thanks a lot. What error? I load a program or click a link to a site. I
can SEE a difference in the time (increase) that it takes to perform the
task.

http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html
http://www.sysinfo.org/startupinfo.html

What am I supposed to be looking for? Or is it that you like to see your
name in print?

Does the drive support UDMA6?

Did you read my post? I quote (myself):

I used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

P.S., I wouldn't worry about getting pissed-off so much.

 

[HankG]

The only way you will see any improvement with UDMA 6 over UDMA 5 is if

you have two very fast drives.

Please explain. Are you referring to a RAID configuration?

HankG

 

[Mike Walsh]

I was referring to 2 drive on the same cable, not RAID. Newer 7200 rpm drives can exceed 60 MB/sec sequential transfer. When copying large unfragmented files from one drive to another you would exceed the bandwidth of UDMA 5, and possibly UDMA 6. You would have to use SATA for maximum performance in that case. Most of the time, with random access of smaller files or accessing one drive at a time, UDMA 5 would be fast enough. The speed difference between UDMA 5 and and SATA is only 50% (unless the promised faster SATA has been released, which I haven't seen). Also note that even if you put fast parallel IDE drives on separate cables you will still be limited by the speed of a standard PCI bus.

you have two very fast drives.

Please explain. Are you referring to a RAID configuration?

HankG

--

When replying by Email include NewSGrouP (case sensitive) in Subject

Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

110% is impossible.

Let's review some math. My old box ran at 2.8 Ghz. If my new one ran at
the same speed, it would be running at 100% of the speed of the old. Since
it runs at 3.07, the difference in speed is (3.07-2.8 or .27 divided by the
speed of the original [2.8] equals .0964 rounded to .10 for convenience.
This added to the speed of the original (100%) equals 110.

Fortunately your original wording was "The new computer's processor is
110% as fast as the former". Your point is proved.

I used a program called HD Tune, which noted that the drive supported UDMA 6
(ATA/133) but is operating at UDMA 5 (ATA/100).

That difference will make NO difference in performance for you.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

shortfall. UDMA
you have two very fast drives.

Please explain. Are you referring to a RAID configuration?

Yes, like in RAID 0.

The issue is the difference between the speed of the interface and the speed
of the HD. If the interface is faster than the HD then it doesn't make any
difference how much faster. 100 & 133 MB/sec. are faster than any current
HD. The fastest ATA HD is about 60MB/sec. The only value of the 100 or
133 is if you have TWO such 60MB/sec. HDs both streaming at full speed
simultaneously.

 

[HankG]

this
is shortfall. UDMA if
you have two very fast drives.

Please explain. Are you referring to a RAID configuration?

Yes, like in RAID 0.

The issue is the difference between the speed of the interface and the speed
of the HD. If the interface is faster than the HD then it doesn't make any
difference how much faster. 100 & 133 MB/sec. are faster than any current
HD. The fastest ATA HD is about 60MB/sec. The only value of the 100 or
133 is if you have TWO such 60MB/sec. HDs both streaming at full speed
simultaneously.

Ron, Mike:

Thanks for your very detailed explanations. I guess I'll have to be content
with what I have.

HankG

 

[~misfit~]

110% is impossible.

Let's review some math. My old box ran at 2.8 Ghz. If my new one
ran at the same speed, it would be running at 100% of the speed of
the old. Since it runs at 3.07, the difference in speed is
(3.07-2.8 or .27 divided by the speed of the original [2.8] equals
.0964 rounded to .10 for convenience. This added to the speed of the
original (100%) equals 110.

That's most likely user error.

Thanks a lot. What error? I load a program or click a link to a
site. I can SEE a difference in the time (increase) that it takes to
perform the task.

http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html
http://www.sysinfo.org/startupinfo.html

What am I supposed to be looking for? Or is it that you like to see
your name in print?

Ungrateful little bitch aren't you? Is your IDE controller capable of UDMA
6? A lot of them aren't. You'd never notice the difference anyway.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Can any of the resident experts advise what determines the mode of
operation
or offer any suggestions? The computer is a P-4, 3.07 Ghz, with 1 GB of
ram. Thanks for any suggestions.

HankG

Are the latest chipset drivers installed for the motherboard - and perhaps
Intel Application Accelerator if it's a supported chipset? The 4A250J0
probably isn't listed on Maxtor's website due to it being a model only for
the OEM market but its basically a 250 GB version of the Diamondmax 16 drive
in your case with ball bearing spindle bearings (rather than fluid
bearings) - here's a link on Maxtor's site for how it should be jumpered:
http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/maxtor.cfg/php/enduser/olh_adp.php?p_faqid=1198


Paul
PS I strongly advise against any screwing around with the registry,
installing all the latest, correct drivers/software should result in maximum
performance being obtained.

 

[HankG]

Ungrateful little bitch aren't you? Is your IDE controller capable of UDMA
6? A lot of them aren't. You'd never notice the difference anyway.
--

Not at all ungrateful (see my response to Ron and Mike). Just didn't
appreciate Shep's condesending tone.

HankG

 

[kony]

Not at all ungrateful (see my response to Ron and Mike). Just didn't
appreciate Shep's condesending tone.

While the current 5K4 RPM drive "might" be slower in some
ways, it generally shouldn't make enough difference to
notice a slowdown for most (typical) uses.

There are several other potential reasons why this box seems
slower... less memory, apps loading on startup, spyware/viri
running, chipset drivers not loaded, apps spread over slower
part of a large partition, integrated video/sound/etc
especially without chipset drivers, and even the services
disabled will impact performance to extent of how much
memory is being juggled around, especially on boxes with
384-512MB or less (depending on tasks).

 

[Ron Reaugh]

While the current 5K4 RPM drive "might" be slower in some
ways, it generally shouldn't make enough difference to
notice a slowdown for most (typical) uses.

Nope, serious computer users do immediately notice the difference between
5400 RPM drives and late model 7200 RPM drives.

 

[kony]

Nope, serious computer users do immediately notice the difference between
5400 RPM drives and late model 7200 RPM drives.

Older 5K4 drives, yes, but the increased platter density of
the 4a250j0 should offset that, in addition to the gross
size, allowing the vast majority of files to be residing on
outer portion of platter if partitioned wisely. The
performace is likely within 90% of the past Maxtor 7K2
drives, possibly even faster on average than the first two
gen. 7K2 ROM Maxtor drives.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Older 5K4 drives, yes, but the increased platter density of
the 4a250j0 should offset that, in addition to the gross
size, allowing the vast majority of files to be residing on
outer portion of platter if partitioned wisely. The
performace is likely within 90% of the past Maxtor 7K2
drives, possibly even faster on average than the first two
gen. 7K2 ROM Maxtor drives.

Nope, there's access time also and late model 7200 RPM drives have a higher
STR.

 

[kony]

Nope, there's access time also and late model 7200 RPM drives have a higher
STR.

It's true that the latest models of 7K2 RPM drives have
higher STR, "usually". It's not always so because of
situations with smaller drives... take a 60GB 7K2 drive,
fill it half full of data, then it's going to have more
similar STR to the 250GB 4a250j0, on average, because the
4a250j0 is only ~12% full.

Only making a direct comparision to a modern high-capacity
7K2 drive, will the difference be large enough that the
average person would notice it on typical PC uses. We do
not have enough info to be certain that is the situation,
unless I overlooked specifcs of the 7K2 drive in the other
system the OP had.

 

[HankG]

Yes, I did notice a difference in how IE and OE loaded.

Older 5K4 drives, yes, but the increased platter density of
the 4a250j0 should offset that, in addition to the gross
size, allowing the vast majority of files to be residing on
outer portion of platter if partitioned wisely. The
performace is likely within 90% of the past Maxtor 7K2
drives, possibly even faster on average than the first two
gen. 7K2 ROM Maxtor drives.

My drive essentially has 1 partition for everything (minus a small recovery
partition of 5+ GB). I do defragment frequently. Even so, when I analyze
the drive first, it shows minimal files at the back end of the partition.

HankG

 

[HankG]

It's true that the latest models of 7K2 RPM drives have
higher STR, "usually". It's not always so because of
situations with smaller drives... take a 60GB 7K2 drive,
fill it half full of data, then it's going to have more
similar STR to the 250GB 4a250j0, on average, because the
4a250j0 is only ~12% full.

Only making a direct comparision to a modern high-capacity
7K2 drive, will the difference be large enough that the
average person would notice it on typical PC uses. We do
not have enough info to be certain that is the situation,
unless I overlooked specifcs of the 7K2 drive in the other
system the OP had.

The original (faster unit) had 512 mb of memory, this one has 1 GB. FWIW,
it also sports a SoundBlaster Live 5.1 and NVIDIA GEforce 4 128MB card.

HankG