Is SATA faster than IDE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter needin4mation
  • Start date Start date
N

needin4mation

Should I upgrade? Will I really see a difference? I am so tired of
waiting on large directories to display all the files in Explorer.
Thanks.
 
Is SATA faster than IDE?
No.

I am so tired of
waiting on large directories to display all the files in Explorer.
Click to expand...

Bad filesystem. And maybe bad OS.
As a matter of fact, Explorer is really slow with directories of more
than 1000 files or so.
 
Fabien said:
Bad filesystem. And maybe bad OS.
As a matter of fact, Explorer is really slow with directories of more
than 1000 files or so.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's xp. The drive has been defragmented and all that. But is
real slow.
 
Should I upgrade? Will I really see a difference? I am so tired of
waiting on large directories to display all the files in Explorer.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Get yourself a dual-core CPU and a decent RAID controller with cache
memory (eg Areca ARC-1220.) You'd get even better performance by
running RAID 0, but keep backups of important data.

What takes 3 minutes to display on one of my lesser machines takes less
than 10 seconds on the above. eg. folder containing in excess of
100,000 files.


Odie
 
Frodo said:
SATA-II are a little bit faster then ATA100/133 drives.
Click to expand...

Obviously because they are later generation drives, just like later ge-
neration IDE drives are faster than previous generation IDE drives.
 
SATA-II are a little bit faster then ATA100/133 drives.
But it's not worth it just to replace the ATA drives.
Wait until you can go dual core CPU and SATA-II RAID.
 
Odie Ferrous said:
Get yourself a dual-core CPU and a decent RAID controller with cache
memory (eg Areca ARC-1220.)
Click to expand...
You'd get even better performance by running RAID 0,
Click to expand...

Not on directories.
but keep backups of important data.
Click to expand...
What takes 3 minutes to display on one of my lesser machines takes less than
10 seconds on the above. eg. folder containing in excess of 100,000 files.
Click to expand...

An 1800% improvement. Miracles do happen.

Anyone who opens a big directory and watches the drive LED, knows that there
is hardly any drive access. The only noticeable LED flicker actually happens when
the hourglass/lantern finally disappears and the directorie contents appears.
 
Mike Redrobe said:
Depends on the type of files - turning off thumbnail view might help
if they are pictures or avi files, also look at:
http://www.optimizingpc.com/optimize/registrytweaks.html
in particular the avi tweak at the top, and the NTFS tweaks at bottom.
Click to expand...

There is also window caching so there is also a difference if you have
a single window display mode or that you open a new window with every
new sub-directory opened. Not on the initial opening but when you go
back up the directory tree the display is instant. Does make a mess of
your desktop though.
 
Yup. It's xp. The drive has been defragmented and all that. But is
real slow.
Click to expand...

BTW, I hope your disk is formatted in NTFS?
NTFS is bad enough, but FAT32 is even worse.

Another thing you might try (if Mike's advice doesn't help) is install
an alternative program to browse your files, like Midnight Commander.
If it's faster, it means that the bottleneck is Microsoft's Explorer.
If it's not faster, the bottleneck comes from the filesystem.

But in fact, the problem might come from you, and the directory
structure you made. I mean, I don't have many directories with more
than 1000 files.
And even then, Windows 2000 shows the contents of a 1790-file
directory in less than 3 seconds.

You may also need some more RAM. Windows XP is hellish with less than
512 MB, and 1 GB makes things comfortable.
 
What takes 3 minutes to display on one of my lesser machines takes less
than 10 seconds on the above.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the difference doesn't come from the amount of RAM
installed?
In general, under Windows 2000/XP, if you have a bit of money to
spend, the first thing to do is make sure that you have at least 1 GB
RAM. Even the processor speed is less important.
 
Fabien LE LEZ said:
BTW, I hope your disk is formatted in NTFS?
NTFS is bad enough, but FAT32 is even worse.

Another thing you might try (if Mike's advice doesn't help) is install
an alternative program to browse your files, like Midnight Commander.
If it's faster, it means that the bottleneck is Microsoft's Explorer.
If it's not faster, the bottleneck comes from the filesystem.

But in fact, the problem might come from you, and the directory
structure you made. I mean, I don't have many directories with more
than 1000 files.
And even then, Windows 2000 shows the contents of a 1790-file
directory in less than 3 seconds.
Click to expand...
You may also need some more RAM.
Windows XP is hellish with less than 512 MB,
Click to expand...

Completely wrong.
and 1 GB makes things comfortable.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you do on the PC.
 
Fabien said:
Are you sure the difference doesn't come from the amount of RAM
installed?
In general, under Windows 2000/XP, if you have a bit of money to
spend, the first thing to do is make sure that you have at least 1 GB
RAM. Even the processor speed is less important.
Click to expand...

Not in my case. I have another machine with a dual core AMD X2 4800 but
without RAID, and it takes ages to list the contents of a busy folder.

The RAID array makes the difference, despite individuals rubbishing a
1800% performance increase because they have absolutely no experience of
the subject.


Odie
 
In general, under Windows 2000/XP, if you have a bit of money to
spend, the first thing to do is make sure that you have at least 1 GB
RAM. [...]
Click to expand...

Not in my case. I have another machine with a dual core AMD X2 4800 but
without RAID, and it takes ages to list the contents of a busy folder.
Click to expand...

Same amount of RAM?
The RAID array makes the difference, despite individuals rubbishing a
1800% performance increase because they have absolutely no experience of
the subject.
Click to expand...

Well, it is actually hard to believe -- unless you have a 18-disk
RAID 0 array.

Let's say you start (or reboot) your computer. When you display the
contents of a 100,000-file directory for the first time after starting
Windows, without any other software having accessed that directory
before, it takes less than 10 seconds. Is that correct?
 
Odie Ferrous said:
Not in my case. I have another machine with a dual core AMD X2 4800 but
without RAID, and it takes ages to list the contents of a busy folder.
Click to expand...
Tune Windows for larger file cache.
The RAID array makes the difference, despite individuals rubbishing a
1800% performance increase because they have absolutely no experience of
the subject.
Click to expand...
No, it strictly due to the cache on the RAID controller, not RAID.
 
Fabien said:
In general, under Windows 2000/XP, if you have a bit of money to
spend, the first thing to do is make sure that you have at least 1 GB
RAM. [...]
Click to expand...

Not in my case. I have another machine with a dual core AMD X2 4800 but
without RAID, and it takes ages to list the contents of a busy folder.
Click to expand...

Same amount of RAM?
Click to expand...

Yes - both 2GB.


Well, it is actually hard to believe -- unless you have a 18-disk
RAID 0 array.
Click to expand...


I have a three-drive SATA II array (Raid 0) on a PCI-Express Areca
ARC-1220 raid controller.

Let's say you start (or reboot) your computer. When you display the
contents of a 100,000-file directory for the first time after starting
Windows, without any other software having accessed that directory
before, it takes less than 10 seconds. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


The machine is busy recovering a DVD at the moment - will run some tests
when it finishes and compare them with the other machine.

The overall performance difference is staggering - not merely "slight."



Odie
 
Fabien said:
Are you sure the difference doesn't come from the amount of RAM
installed?
In general, under Windows 2000/XP, if you have a bit of money to
spend, the first thing to do is make sure that you have at least 1 GB
RAM. Even the processor speed is less important.
Click to expand...


Hello, Fabien:

Of course, RAM is always a wise investment, whatever the operating
system involved. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
 
Back
Top