K
Ken Varn
I have a system that I am doing development under Windows 2000 that stores a
large quantify of small image files at a high rate (1 file every 20
milliseconds). Each file has an average size of 12 - 14K. I am storing to
an ATA-100 Maxtor 250 gig. hard drive. The performance of the drive seems
to keep up for the first 220+ gig. of storage, but when I cross the 220 gig.
threshold, performance starts getting worse and worse. By the time the hard
drive has about 2 - 4 gig. left on it, the performance has reduced by about
half.
I am not sure if this is related to the Windows 2000 NTFS file system or the
hard drive itself, so I tried the same test with a 180 gig. Hitachi hard
drive. The same results occurred when the drive was nearing capacity.
Performance degraded significantly.
So now I am concerned that there may be issues with NTFS and the quantity
and size of the files in relation to performance. Could someone explain why
this is happening and whether this is a bug or implementation problem? I
really need the performance to stay consistent from when the drive is empty
to when it becomes full.
--
-----------------------------------
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
(e-mail address removed)
-----------------------------------
large quantify of small image files at a high rate (1 file every 20
milliseconds). Each file has an average size of 12 - 14K. I am storing to
an ATA-100 Maxtor 250 gig. hard drive. The performance of the drive seems
to keep up for the first 220+ gig. of storage, but when I cross the 220 gig.
threshold, performance starts getting worse and worse. By the time the hard
drive has about 2 - 4 gig. left on it, the performance has reduced by about
half.
I am not sure if this is related to the Windows 2000 NTFS file system or the
hard drive itself, so I tried the same test with a 180 gig. Hitachi hard
drive. The same results occurred when the drive was nearing capacity.
Performance degraded significantly.
So now I am concerned that there may be issues with NTFS and the quantity
and size of the files in relation to performance. Could someone explain why
this is happening and whether this is a bug or implementation problem? I
really need the performance to stay consistent from when the drive is empty
to when it becomes full.
--
-----------------------------------
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
(e-mail address removed)
-----------------------------------