PDA

View Full Version : Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??


Paul C
February 14th 06, 06:56 PM
Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??

Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
bad as it is with a single cpu ???

Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.

Thanks.

/PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
leave it and just do the copy.

Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.

Okies.

General Schvantzkoph
February 14th 06, 08:02 PM
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:56:37 +1100, Paul C wrote:

>
>
> Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
>
> Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
> crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
> bad as it is with a single cpu ???
>
> Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
> a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
>
> Thanks.
>
> /PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
> off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
> leave it and just do the copy.
>
> Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.
>
> Okies.

Dual core won't help you, file copies don't put much of a strain on the
CPU. Make sure that you have DMA enabled, if the disk is working in PIO
mode the performance will suck.

Paul C
February 15th 06, 04:16 AM
Its a SATA 150 drive. Does that have dma and what other stuff should
be turned on ?

And where do i do it and se eif its on ?



On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:55:23 -0500, Bill > wrote:

>Paul C <Paul Coulbourn> wrote:
>
>>Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
>
>Not really...most of the speed issues with file copying is related to
>hard drive controllers and data transfer rates. The CPU has very little
>impact on how fast a drive moves data.
>
>>Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
>>a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
>
>It has almost everything to do with the drive.
>
>>/PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
>>off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
>>leave it and just do the copy.
>
>There are other ways to improve data throughput with your drives, such
>as RAID setups and adding large caching controllers.

General Schvantzkoph
February 15th 06, 02:34 PM
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:16:22 +1100, Paul C wrote:

>
>
> Its a SATA 150 drive. Does that have dma and what other stuff should
> be turned on ?
>
> And where do i do it and se eif its on ?

You didn't say what OS your are using. In Linux you can use hdparm to test
the drive performance and to enable and disable DMA. To test your disks
you'll first need to figure out their device names. To do that do

df

On my system that gets you
df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda7 7938148 5937736 1590664 79% /
/dev/shm 1297748 0 1297748 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda6 8066164 5947964 1708452 78% /fc3
/dev/sda11 93155896 74864848 14443616 84% /home
/dev/sda10 31742464 26882436 3221400 90% /local
/dev/sda9 8066164 3492596 4163820 46% /mandrake
/dev/sda8 7938148 6302848 1225552 84% /oldfc4

So the disk is /dev/sda

To test the performance do hdparm -tT /dev/sda

hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 2424 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1211.92 MB/sec
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(null) (wait for flush complete) failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device
Timing buffered disk reads: 172 MB in 3.00 seconds = 57.25 MB/sec
HDIO_DRIVE_CMD(null) (wait for flush complete) failed: Inappropriate ioctl
for device

Scotter
February 15th 06, 04:46 PM
I've heard SATA drives are a little better at multitasking than ATA drives
but I don't know why or even if it is a false rumor. Can someone clarify,
please?

--
Scotter
Tyan Thunder K8WE
Dual Opteron 252s (2.6ghz)
6 gig DDR400 RAM
XFX 7800 GTX 256 w/VGAsilencerV3
500 gig SATA2 Hitachi
Dual 24" Dell LCDs
550W power supply
-
"Paul C" <Paul Coulbourn> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
>
> Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
> crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
> bad as it is with a single cpu ???
>
> Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
> a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
>
> Thanks.
>
> /PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
> off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
> leave it and just do the copy.
>
> Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.
>
> Okies.

General Schvantzkoph
February 15th 06, 05:31 PM
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:46:13 +0000, Scotter wrote:

> I've heard SATA drives are a little better at multitasking than ATA drives
> but I don't know why or even if it is a false rumor. Can someone clarify,
> please?

SATA-II drives support Native Command Queuing (NCQ) which allows multiple
commands to be issued to a drive at a time. SCSI has always had this
capability which is why SCSI drives have been preferred in server
applications. NCQ is very helpful for file servers where there is a lot of
disk requests that can be juggled. It doesn't matter much on the desktop
which is why it's taken so long for them to add the capability to ATA
drives. The reason that it was added in the SATA spec was because the new
interface eliminated the other shortcomings of ATA drives that had made
them unsuitable for enterprise applications. By adding NCQ it's become
possible to use SATA drives in most of the applications that previously
required SCSI drives.

VanShania
February 16th 06, 03:01 AM
Daul core will speed up file copying if your copying multiple files. A
single core simply splits its power between tasks while with dual core, you
have 2 cores to do multiple tasks. And yes, Sata drives are faster than than
IDE drives. But you have to have your drives on seperate ports( not between
master and slave drives) to get the fastest transfer rates, be it hard
drives or optical drives.
--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Paul C" <Paul Coulbourn> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
>
> Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
> crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
> bad as it is with a single cpu ???
>
> Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
> a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
>
> Thanks.
>
> /PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
> off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
> leave it and just do the copy.
>
> Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.
>
> Okies.

VanShania
February 16th 06, 03:11 AM
DMA is automatically enabled in WIN XP.

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:56:37 +1100, Paul C wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
> >
> > Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
> > crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
> > bad as it is with a single cpu ???
> >
> > Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
> > a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > /PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
> > off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
> > leave it and just do the copy.
> >
> > Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.
> >
> > Okies.
>
> Dual core won't help you, file copies don't put much of a strain on the
> CPU. Make sure that you have DMA enabled, if the disk is working in PIO
> mode the performance will suck.
>
>

VanShania
February 16th 06, 07:03 AM
I think you mean right clicking on My Computer, Properties, Hardware, Device
Manager and then selecting your drive and going through its properties where
you'll find no selection for DMA because it is automatically set by WIN XP,
and even WIN ME if I'm not mistaken. Win 98 I remember having to do it
manually. You sound like a guy who would rather spend $100 on 512k of cache
instead of a gig of memory.

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> VanShania wrote:
>
> >> Dual core won't help you, file copies don't put much of a strain on the
> >> CPU. Make sure that you have DMA enabled, if the disk is working in PIO
> >> mode the performance will suck.
> >
> >DMA is automatically enabled in WIN XP.
>
> By default Direct Memory Access (DMA) is enabled, and Windows will use
> the DMA mode that the BIOS reports for the drive, which is mode 5 or 6
> for most recent drives.
>
> However, if there is any interface issues, XP will automatically lower
> the DMA mode, and even revert to PIO (Programmable Input Output) mode,
> in order to maintain data integrity. And of course Windows won't tell
> you that it has made any changes.
>
> If this happens, you need to reset the mode under the hardware settings.

VanShania
February 16th 06, 07:05 AM
I don't think you see the big picture.

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> VanShania wrote:
>
> >Daul core will speed up file copying if your copying multiple files.
>
> Actually it won't, because the drive can only read/write data at a
> specific rate which is determined solely by its physical design.
>
> While a bigger drive tends to be faster, it's not because of the type of
> interface or buffer size - areal density and rotational rate is where
> larger drives manage to produce higher throughput. Most drives today are
> much slower than the drive interface anyway.
>
> If you install a dual-core processor of the same speed in a system that
> supports both single and dual-core, and compare drive speed, you will
> find they both perform about the same. Burst rates will be a bit higher
> due to caching and faster response to changes, but sustained data
> throughput will be the same.
>
> >single core simply splits its power between tasks while with dual core,
you
> >have 2 cores to do multiple tasks.
>
> Multiple software tasks or threads inside the processor ONLY.
>
> The dual-core processor has nothing to do with anything outside the CPU.
>
> The memory, hard drive, video card, will all perform about the same. You
> might see slight performance boosts in programs that take advantage of
> the dual-core, like higher framerates in a game or faster number
> crunching in a big spreadsheet. But those are CPU-related tasks and the
> external data rates of all the other devices will remain basically the
> same.
>
> > And yes, Sata drives are faster than than
> >IDE drives. But you have to have your drives on seperate ports( not
between
> >master and slave drives) to get the fastest transfer rates, be it hard
> >drives or optical drives.
>
> Actually SATA and PATA (both are IDE) drives of the same physical design
> will perform at the same rates. The SATA interface is capable of faster
> data rates, but the read/write operations of the drive will be identical
> to PATA.
>
> The big advantages of SATA are more connections, easier RAID configs,
> and a faster interface for terabyte drives (when they arrive) that will
> be faster than current gigabyte drives. The fact that manufacturing
> costs are lower is also worthy of note.
>
> Remember that SATA is just another interface format. It is not a
> revolutionary design that makes drives faster.

VanShania
February 18th 06, 08:35 PM
Oh bill, don't throw a tantrum now

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> VanShania wrote:
>
> >I don't think you see the big picture.
>
> Oh...insults instead of a backing argument.
>
> I'm usually too busy to play the troll game. But if you want to discuss
> this and learn something...present something useful in your posts and
> we'll all have at it.
>
> Don't be ashamed to admit you don't know everything. I sure as hell
> don't know it all, and I'll freely admit to it. But don't try to argue a
> point if you have nothing worthwhile to say.
>
> As for insults and one-liners...I find them rather boring and will not
> respond beyond this.

VanShania
February 18th 06, 08:42 PM
Well, you obviously don't use computers to their max potential as us power
users do. There was even a post here before about changing ram from 768 to 2
gigs and how farcry played significantly better. Like I said, I don't think
you read at all. And WIN XP does enable DMA automatically. You obviously
have to do complicated things to your computer to "try" get it running
perfectly. The rest of us in the know get it running right the first time.

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> VanShania wrote:
>
> >I think you mean right clicking on My Computer, Properties, Hardware,
Device
> >Manager and then selecting your drive and going through its properties
where
> >you'll find no selection for DMA because it is automatically set by WIN
XP,
>
> Helps if you look in the right spot...
>
> Try Device Manager, IDE controllers, and then the channel where your
> drive is installed, click Properties, Advanced Settings tab...
>
> >and even WIN ME if I'm not mistaken. Win 98 I remember having to do it
> >manually. You sound like a guy who would rather spend $100 on 512k of
cache
> >instead of a gig of memory.
>
> Once again...depends on the usage. Not everyone runs your typical
> applications. I have computers that are dedicated purely to number
> crunching, and others that are used in a more typical manner. For
> obvious reasons, they have completely different hardware configurations.
>
> Having said that, I will agree that most typical users would benefit
> from more RAM, up to 512 or 768megs or so. Beyond that is usually a
> waste since most users only open a couple of windows at a time and they
> don't really do much multitasking, contrary to what they may think
> themselves.
>
> At my work, I constantly find my staff opening and closing often-used
> apps, and trying to get them to understand that they can leave some open
> is totally alien to them...they just don't get it.

VanShania
February 18th 06, 09:16 PM
Adobe just released a combined package of Premiere Elements and
PhotoShop(Premiere Elements 2.0) for $150(US) that is Dual-Core ready and
apparently "chews through video in a way that will make any hardware-head
jiggle with joy"(MaxPC).

--
[email protected]
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Paul C" <Paul Coulbourn> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dual Core Will it speed Up file copying ??
>
> Ath the moment if i have 2 things being copied they slow down to a
> crawl as usal. Would dual core speed this up or atleast not make it as
> bad as it is with a single cpu ???
>
> Or does it it have somthing to do with the Harddrive as well. Ive got
> a SATA 150 drive, NCQ i dont think so.
>
> Thanks.
>
> /PS If it does that alone would be a reason to go dual core. ****es me
> off having to only copy one file at a time. Want to do maybe atleast 3
> leave it and just do the copy.
>
> Just backing up at the moment and have to moce things arround.
>
> Okies.