M
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
I just replaced my old Maxtor 5T020H2 with a new, 7200rpm 6Y120P0 with 8MB
cache.
Naturally, I expected the new drive to be significantly faster than the old
one.
To my surprise, the new drive is only about HALF as fast as the old drive.
nBench shows the old drive doing 58.49 MB/sec, while the new drive is only
doing 26.19MB/sec.
Frankly, I thought the new drive with 8MB of cache RAM would fly--or at
least beat the older drive by a nice margin. In all past instances where I
replaced a drive, the newer drive's raw throughput always surpassed the one
it replaced by 30-40%. I usually assumed that was due to higher areal
density.
What's with the Maxto 120GB drive then? It should have a much higher areal
density than the old 20GB drive it replaces and being effectively empty,
should perform a lot faster than the old, 95% full drive. I have the old
drive on a separate controller as a spare and can readily compare
performance.
Part of the reason I upgraded was to speed up the disk subsystem, but this
is effectively a downgrade.
Although I doubt it, I do wonder if something about using Norton Ghost 2003
to clone the old drive to the new has caused a shift in performance?
Do I have a defective drive? I have never heard of a new drive, with a much
larger cache, performing much more slowly than an old drive with a small
cache. Any thoughts on this?
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
cache.
Naturally, I expected the new drive to be significantly faster than the old
one.
To my surprise, the new drive is only about HALF as fast as the old drive.
nBench shows the old drive doing 58.49 MB/sec, while the new drive is only
doing 26.19MB/sec.
Frankly, I thought the new drive with 8MB of cache RAM would fly--or at
least beat the older drive by a nice margin. In all past instances where I
replaced a drive, the newer drive's raw throughput always surpassed the one
it replaced by 30-40%. I usually assumed that was due to higher areal
density.
What's with the Maxto 120GB drive then? It should have a much higher areal
density than the old 20GB drive it replaces and being effectively empty,
should perform a lot faster than the old, 95% full drive. I have the old
drive on a separate controller as a spare and can readily compare
performance.
Part of the reason I upgraded was to speed up the disk subsystem, but this
is effectively a downgrade.
Although I doubt it, I do wonder if something about using Norton Ghost 2003
to clone the old drive to the new has caused a shift in performance?
Do I have a defective drive? I have never heard of a new drive, with a much
larger cache, performing much more slowly than an old drive with a small
cache. Any thoughts on this?
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-