Permormance question - IDE Disk

  cga 12:59 31 Jul 04
Locked

For ease of backup I have split my system up into 4 partitions:-

C: - XP Pro System

D: - Data (including My Documents)

E: - Program code for all software except WinXP

P: - Paging partition

I have 2 physical disks, both 7200rpm with 8mb Cache. I also have a DVD ROM & a DVD writer.

Q1: How should I arrange my Disks & DVD drives on the IDE channels for maximum performance.

Q2: How should I arrange the partitions on my two disks for maximum performance.

btw: my plan is to backup the partitions on one disk to separate backup partitions on the other. For the system partition I use Norton Ghost.

This way I need to back up my system only occasionally when I make significant changes but I back up my data more frequently.

  Chegs ® 13:18 31 Jul 04

click here

Lot of techno reading on this page.Alternatively,Langalist has a few easier to understand articles,just likely to be harder to find. :-)


You haven't stated which way you have the optical drives setup,if you can do it,these are best on a channel each to ease "on-the-fly" operations.In days past,it was often stated that IDE hdd's weren't on the same channels as optical drives as the optical drives slowed the hdd's,but I haven't really noticed anything in my system(SATA+IDE+Optical)connecting the optical drives on the same channels as the IDE hdd.I DO find the presence of the 7,200 IDE drive significantly slows the read/write speeds to the SATA drives,remove the IDE completely and the SATA's almost double in "Linear Read Speed"

I see you have the paging file elsewhere(your making me jealous,as mine gets very unstable when I move it)This is supposed to give a hike in performance,do you find this to be so?

  cga 13:38 31 Jul 04

Thanks for the link - I will read it through a little more carefully.

I also had heard that it was not good to put the optical on the same channel as the disks so I have my 2 disks on the primary channel and the 2 optical on the second channel. Not a problem for on-the-fly copying as I dont often do this. Maybe a bigger problem for disk performance?

If I were to arrange it differenty then which disk would I put my DVD writer with?

My disks are currently laid out as follows:-

Disk1 - C:(system),P:(paging),E:(Programs),Z:(data backup)

Disk2 - D:(Data),K:(System Backup Images)

I would have liked to put the paging on Disk2 but that would have to wait until I have a bigger Disk.

No S-ATA at present (I have an ASUS p4t533-C Mobo)

  cga 13:43 31 Jul 04

I forgot to answer the point about performance - No, I did not find that a separate partition for the paging file helped. Not surprising really as it is on the same disk as the system partition but the disk heads now have further to move from the system files to the paging partition.

I an assuming that the main paging activity relates to programs and not data?

  flying grouse 14:12 31 Jul 04

the only thing I might add is make the RW drive the slave and the ROM master, the primary channel is for your HDD..................

  cga 14:28 31 Jul 04

I assume that I am correct that it would be better to get the paging on to disk 2 when I have space?

  Chegs ® 15:04 31 Jul 04

I was reading somewhere that paging on a second drive could give a whole 2% improvement over the option of leaving it on the same drive,but if the user was after extracting every bit of performance,ok.The best option to get the extra performance by shifting the paging file was to put it on either the beginning/end of the drive(I'm not sure which now,too much brain-ache)because this gave a tiny bit more improvement.


Therefore,I would go for optical on one channel,hdd's on another(I also rarely copy "on-the-fly")and leave windows to manage its paging,until you can put it on its own seperate hdd,then try placing it there and see what happens performance wise.Also,if you still wish to try the DVD-RW on a channel with an IDE hdd,then put it with the hdd NOT carrying the OS,incase it DOES give you a performance hit.

I was midway thru typing this when my system crashed.Grrrrrr!!!!!

  cga 15:17 31 Jul 04

Thanks for that. I guess that you would not want to put the paging on the end of the disk as this would ensure the maximum head movement latency.

My guess is that it would be better to put it on disk 2 but, until then, I would be better putting it back into the system partition but at a fixed size. This will then be the closest possible position to the system files.

I really am not trying to squeeze the last % out but my system has become very sluggish (4+ mins to boot up to stability) with the IO light on almost solid. I have tried most of the crap cleaners and registry cleaners/compressors with no real benefit so I was looking to see if a rearrangement of IO could help me.

  cga 15:21 31 Jul 04

Has anyone any thoughts on the other part of my question. Am I right in splitting the System and Data partitions onto 2 different disks or would some other arrangement be more efficient? Any thoughts welcome?

  Chegs ® 15:25 31 Jul 04

Splitting the System and Data partitions onto 2 different disks is the best option.



Hopefully no more crashes. :-)

  cga 15:33 31 Jul 04

Doesn't seem that there is much different I can do in this area then - except move the paging partition to disk 2.

Still, it was good to have your thoughts on this to confirm that I was not thinking backwards :-)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

How to get Windows 10 for free | How to install Windows 10: There is still a way to avoid paying…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Alex Chinneck’s giant ice cube Christmas tree at Kings Cross

Apple rumours & predictions 2017: The iPhone 8, new iPads, and everything else you should expect fr7…