 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / January 2007Win-98se, Silicon Image SATA controller performance test (large file copy)
Speed test: Copy 40 files (each being a 1-gb .VOB file) from one directory to another directory on the same hard drive. Drive: 2-year-old 160 gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 (ST3160023AS) SATA. Motherboard: Gigabyte K8NXP with Intel 875P chipset (ICH5R), 512 mb ram, 3.0 ghz P-4 CPU, 800 mhz FSB. SATA controller: Silicon Image 3112 integrated onto the motherboard. OS: Win98Se fully patched/updated via WindowsUpdate. No third-party enhancements to system files, using default values for file and system cache. System configured as "file server" in Device Manager performance screen, write-behing caching on removable drives was enabled. Drive was formatted as a single primary FAT-32 partition with 4kb cluster size. Simple file copy and paste in a single operation. Elapsed time: 47 minutes 29 seconds = 2849 seconds 42,949,591,040 bytes in 40 files (42,949,672,960 bytes used on disk) 42,949,591,040 / 2849 = 15,075,321 bytes per second Basically, 15 million bytes per second, or 66 seconds per billion bytes (almost 1 gb per minute). (My experience with i845-based motherboards using Norton Ghost to clone 1 drive (IDE Master 0) to another drive (IDE Master 1) is that I can clone a drive with 5 gb of contents (NTFS) in about 2.5 minutes.) I will attempt to perform this copy again, which will result in breaking the 137 gb barrier at some point during the copy. If the system is succeptible to the 137 gb data wrapping, then I presume the drive will get screwed up during the copy. We'll see. From: "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> | Speed test: | [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] | system is succeptible to the 137 gb data wrapping, then I presume the | drive will get screwed up during the copy. We'll see. You indicated imaging a master HD to a Master HD. That means you are going from one IDE/ATAPI channel to another channel. This will *always* be faster than a OS file copy ofiles on the same hard disk. You can't read and write to the hard disk at the same time. This is a sequential process. Pick up data set A, drop data set A, Pick up data set B, drop data set B, ... Pick up data set Z, drop data set Z. This would be different if you were copying data from a Master on Channel 0 to a Master on Channel 1. You can read data from hard disk A and werite to hard disk B at the same time. My last note is if you cloned a disk, you most likely did it booting off a Ghost Boot Disk. That means you ran GHOST.EXE under DOS (PC-DOS or MS-DOS). A process running under a single tasking OS such as DOS will always be faster than a multi-tasking OS such as Windows.  SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > | Basically, 15 million bytes per second, or 66 seconds per > | billion bytes (almost 1 gb per minute). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > same hard disk. You can't read and write to the hard disk at > the same time. Yes, I realize that. I was just including my experience with Ghost drive-to-drive cloning as an example of perhaps an optimal situation. > My last note is if you cloned a disk, you most likely did it > booting off a Ghost Boot Disk. That means you ran GHOST.EXE > under DOS (PC-DOS or MS-DOS). Yes, it was Ghost running from a boot floppy (not quite sure of the DOS version - don't think it's MS). But still, how does 1-gig per minute file copy sound for SATA on Win-98? Some have claimed that the small cluster size would reduce performance. I will try this again with a different cluster size, and then again with a second drive for a drive-to-drive copy test under win-98. >> | Basically, 15 million bytes per second, or 66 seconds per >> | billion bytes (almost 1 gb per minute). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yes, it was Ghost running from a boot floppy (not quite sure of the > DOS version - don't think it's MS). Drive Image and True Image and no doubt BING? and others with their Disk to Disk (clone) functions do the same thing too of course. > But still, how does 1-gig per minute file copy sound for SATA on > Win-98? How does 2.3 GB per minute sound using a PATA drive... ...in regards to our other posts thread and in regards to the point I was talking about when run off of PCI Controller Card. I have no doubt that if you 98 Guy ran your HD off of a CC then your rates would similarly improve. For instance even in DOS 'Disk to Disk' operations running two hard drives off of each of the cards two ports as 'Masters' ..and disregarding bloated specs, in real life I've documented 2.3 GB per minute transfer rates and even once took a screenshot of that and I just uploaded that now to show http://rdchauvin.com/DiskToDisk=2.3GB,min.jpg No way you would get that transfer rate without the CC otherwise. Actually here's a neat program to test things too. Here's my screenshot of what I just achieved in a test: http://rdchauvin.com/HDtach-W98SE.gif Here's the link to download this free tester. You have to have this site in your Trusted Zone to get the download button to show up to click. You need to use this v2.7 version since newer versions don't support W98: http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach2.7 Rick > Some have claimed that the small cluster size would reduce > performance. I will try this again with a different cluster size, and > then again with a second drive for a drive-to-drive copy test under > win-98. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.