Is SATA faster than IDE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter needin4mation
  • Start date Start date
Odie said:
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
Click to expand...


Hello, Odie:

100,000 files in one folder? What do you store there, and wouldn't it be
better to spread them out, somewhat?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
 
Fabien 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.

You may also need some more RAM. Windows XP is hellish with less than
512 MB, and 1 GB makes things comfortable.
Click to expand...


Hello, Fabien:

Well, I've always used FAT32, with Windows Millennium (and earlier,
with Win95 & 98), and none of my computers have ever experienced such
sluggish behavior, in Windows Explorer, that the original poster
complained of.

Whether 32MB or 1GB of RAM was installed, and with several thousands
of files in certain folders, too.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
 
Arno said:
Previously (e-mail address removed) wrote:



Definitly. Or use Linux instead of XP.

Arno
Click to expand...


Hello, Arno:

He'd only be wasting his money on a Mac, as I doubt there's anything
permanently wrong with his PC. His present problem is hardly typical
of any Windows version, if that's what you're implying.

You Linux zealot, you! :-)


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
 
John said:
Hello, Odie:

100,000 files in one folder? What do you store there, and wouldn't it be
better to spread them out, somewhat?

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
Click to expand...


These tend to be orphan files picked up during a recovery - mainly temp.
internet files.

Also some Linux recoveries I've done have ended up with in excess of
1.5million files in total, with large numbers in individual folders.

I certainly don't personally store that volume of files in any
folders...


Odie
 
John said:
Hello, Odie:

100,000 files in one folder? What do you store there, and wouldn't it be
better to spread them out, somewhat?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
Click to expand...

Over 100,000 files. They are generated files that go to one folder.
They are generated from a database. They cannot be sent do separate
folders. I expect a little slower, but 10 minutes just to list them.
 
<edited, for brevity>

Hello, Arno:
Click to expand...
He'd only be wasting his money on a Mac, as I doubt there's anything
permanently wrong with his PC. His present problem is hardly typical
of any Windows version, if that's what you're implying.
Click to expand...
You Linux zealot, you! :-)
Click to expand...

Actually I was a Windows user until I got my first Unix account.
They had their chance. They blew it.

Arno
 
Arno said:
Actually I was a Windows user until I got my first Unix account.
They had their chance. They blew it.

Arno
Click to expand...


Hello, Arno:

You shouldn't have become soured on the whole Windows world, just
because of a few random, OS-related mishaps.

Persevere! <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@@concentric.net>
 
Odie Ferrous said:
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. [...]

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 -
Click to expand...
will run some tests when it finishes and compare them with the other machine.
Click to expand...

Isn't "recovering a DVD" such a bitch. Anyone still holding his breath?

No?
The overall performance difference is staggering - not merely "slight."
Click to expand...

(For those amoebes amongst you that can't quite decide how much of a difference
an 1800% improvement is).
 
Back
Top