Shmoe Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 i was over at a friends house, whose dad is a computer builder, anyways, her computer with a single 7200rpm drive and a dual core AMD SMOKES my computer with 2x160gb maxtors (300+mb burst speed) i have a 3700+ and i think she has a 4200+ i just noticed how much snappier and what a huge speed difference there was between our computers when starting up. and come to think of it, upgrading to my RAID 0 set up over my old single 80gb WD IDE set up wasnt a huge difference, if any at all. can any one explin this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
romeo55 Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Type in msconfig in the start>run thing, and click the tab that says "startup" and post that entire screen (Take a Screenshot) this basically tells you all the processes that load up at start up, which is most likely why your comp is slower. After you do that, we'll tell you which you need to disable and which you need to keep Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmoe Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 i only have 11 of those startup, and its only the things i want on start up, it seems like google desktop and norton take way long to start up, it just seemed funny that my 300mb/s set up would get smoked by maybe an 80mb/s. i suppose i could disable some of those pointless windows apps in msconfig too Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
romeo55 Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 i only have 11 of those startup, and its only the things i want on start up, it seems like google desktop and norton take way long to start up, it just seemed funny that my 300mb/s set up would get smoked by maybe an 80mb/s. i suppose i could disable some of those pointless windows apps in msconfig too 300mb/s BURST, most likely, sustained transfers are in the 100mb/s range. Same with IDE 100, burst is 100mb/s, sustained at max on that interface are 80mb/s. A single standard 8mb 7200rpm drive get about 40-55mb/s on its own And norton is the most likely reason, it is a major resource hog. May wanna try AVG Antivirus (It's free and does better) if not, I'd say you need to reformat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 an X2 4200 is two 3700+'s, 1MB per core, 11x200 so potentially it can be twice as fast... when bombarded with a load of tasks at once, dual core pays off... there are many more reasons than drive transfer rate that contribute to the windows load time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 Stripe size may also be a factor. When setting up your RAID array, did you manually choose a stripe size or let the config utility handle it automatically? Since you don't have your specs in your sig, I can't tell if you're running software or hardware RAID. The former may just not give any serious performance benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 an X2 4200 is two 3700+'s, 1MB per core, 11x200 so potentially it can be twice as fast... when bombarded with a load of tasks at once, dual core pays off... there are many more reasons than drive transfer rate that contribute to the windows load time... a 4200+ only has 512 cache per core... a 3700+ ahas 1Mb.... a 4400+ is 2x 3700+'s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 a 4200+ only has 512 cache per core... a 3700+ ahas 1Mb.... a 4400+ is 2x 3700+'s. That is correct Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 That is correct Durr thats why i said it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmoe Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 i think i just put in the maximum allowable size, the 3700+ im using is sckt 754, and i have a gig of corsair not in dual channel, and im just using my mobo for the RAID , i set the raid up in my bios. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 i think i just put in the maximum allowable size, the 3700+ im using is sckt 754, and i have a gig of corsair not in dual channel, and im just using my mobo for the RAID , i set the raid up in my bios. You just made a lot of GOOD points as to why your setup isn't as fast. First of all, you're using 754 and she's using 939. Obviously that means she's got dual channel and you don't, but there's other minor speed differences as well. Also, just setting your stripe size to the highest possible is a silly thing to do, and you'd probably benefit a LOT from reading about stripe sizes, what they are, and how they work. Here's a quick clip of an article I found: When creating RAID arrays, you must consider the RAID stripe size, write- caching, and read-ahead. Stripe size is the amount of data written by the RAID controller to a disk before writing to the next disk. To maximize overall performance, configure your RAID arrays with stripe sizes that correspond to the size of the anticipated system I/O requests. In general, you want to use smaller stripe sizes for the operating system and transaction logs (8K to 16K), and larger stripe sizes for the databases (128K to 256K). The exact size depends on several fac-tors, including the number of users and estimated size of your database. Changing the stripe setting from the default setting can adversely affect your RAID configuration, including limiting the maximum number of drives you can have in a single array. According to that, your OS load comparison is actually where your stripe-set performs the worst, due to your very large stripe size. Also, as has been said, it's not really a fair comparison when the two installs may have totally different configurations and software loads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmoe Posted January 16, 2007 Posted January 16, 2007 i know im comparing apples and oranges. my computer is older, i built it a year ago, for cheap. i just always wondered why i nvr saw a large increase in performance after upgrading to my raid array Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.