If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:48:06 GMT, CJT wrote: You must be on crack. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MUCH slower that anyone with semi-modern gear is accustomed to. Even GbE on a PC is slower than budget local storage HDD. Server-side apps are a logistic solution, performance be damned. You're just pulling things out of your *ss. I'm telling you about actual experience. Oops, I guess I forgot that I've never used a computer before, LOL. Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have a disk attached. But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list of things on which they should be spending money. That's why some people buy newer computer then soon feel it isn't much faster, because they didn't significantly improve the bottleneck to their use, which is often the HDD. Not in my experience for typical office tasks in a properly configured system. There is no such thing as "properly configured" that will change the fact that data I/O is significantly slower over a LAN, compared to any modern HDD. No grand theory changes that, all you have is additional overhead in the already-slowest part of a system, at least for these light tasks. The nice thing about I/O is that not much of it is needed for a typical user. It's easy enough to judge for yourself -- just watch your disk activity light and see what fraction of the time it's on. When that LED is not lit, it doesn't make a bit of difference how fast the disk is spinning, or even if it's spinning at all. If you're doing video editing, or some games, you will benefit from a fast disk. If you're browsing the Web, listening to music, word processing, or using a spreadsheet, you probably aren't hitting the disk much, so the number of seconds per day spent waiting for the disk is probably quite small. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:45:55 GMT, CJT wrote: Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD, and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive. A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD. Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS drive. I disagree. If you spend all day browsing and word processing, you load your browser and word processor once in the morning, and once they're open then opening them isn't any longer an issue (unless your machine crashes a lot -- but that's not usually the disk's fault). I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing". The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small. No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I've stated my position. If it makes you feel good to have a faster disk, and you've convinced yourself you can detect the difference, that's ok with me. There are people who claim they can detect the difference when they change power cords on their stereos, too. Watch your disk activity light. If it's on a lot, you might benefit from a faster disk. If it hardly ever blinks, there's little harm buying a faster disk (except possibly $$), but you're deluding yourself if you think it's going to make a big difference in your ability to get things done. If benchmarks are your "thing" then go for it. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote:
Makes little difference unless Your a benchmark watcher your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE controller If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability, warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed. If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of their time by simply not worrying about such issues. g Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable). Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, and will likely make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM. "Darren Harris" wrote in message om... Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor to consider when purchasing a hard drive? Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and max. full seek time? I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in these other respects. Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
JAD wrote: Makes little difference unless Your a benchmark watcher your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE controller If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability, warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed. If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of their time by simply not worrying about such issues. g Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable). Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliability" argument. and will likely make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM. The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well in the real world use of it. Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not due to the 'RPM'. "Darren Harris" wrote in message om... Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor to consider when purchasing a hard drive? Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and max. full seek time? I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in these other respects. Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
CJT wrote: JAD wrote: Makes little difference unless Your a benchmark watcher your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE controller If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability, warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed. If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of their time by simply not worrying about such issues. g Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable). Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliability" argument. Huh? Build your RAID of such drives. and will likely make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM. The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well in the real world use of it. Gee, maybe you should tell EMC. Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not due to the 'RPM'. Probably right. "Darren Harris" wrote in message om... Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor to consider when purchasing a hard drive? Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and max. full seek time? I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in these other respects. Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights. If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: JAD wrote: Makes little difference unless Your a benchmark watcher your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE controller If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability, warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed. If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of their time by simply not worrying about such issues. g Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable). Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliability" argument. Huh? Build your RAID of such drives. Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster one they're replacing. If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share of the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" solution. and will likely make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM. The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well in the real world use of it. Gee, maybe you should tell EMC. Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a pair of raided drives. Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not due to the 'RPM'. Probably right. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights. If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do. I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: JAD wrote: Makes little difference unless Your a benchmark watcher your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE controller If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability, warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed. If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of their time by simply not worrying about such issues. g Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable). Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliability" argument. Huh? Build your RAID of such drives. Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster one they're replacing. A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so the comparison is an empty one. If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share of the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" solution. If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok. But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability. and will likely make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM. The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well in the real world use of it. Gee, maybe you should tell EMC. Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a pair of raided drives. They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400. Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not due to the 'RPM'. Probably right. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:38:26 GMT, CJT
wrote: I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing". The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small. Untrue, or at least only relatively small. I rebooted the system I'm on right now, a few hours ago... since then the empty cache has gained over 2000 files. a little over 20MB. It would've been even larger but I have about 70% of the ad host servers and shockwave flash blocked. Point being, this is still a theory (that HDD speed isn't signficant) that is far enough off that even a user with naked eye can see the performance difference. No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I've stated my position. If it makes you feel good to have a faster disk, and you've convinced yourself you can detect the difference, that's ok with me. There are people who claim they can detect the difference when they change power cords on their stereos, too. Ok, i can accept that we'll just disagree, and be glad that my systems are all faster because of it. Watch your disk activity light. If it's on a lot, you might benefit from a faster disk. If it hardly ever blinks, there's little harm buying a faster disk (except possibly $$), but you're deluding yourself if you think it's going to make a big difference in your ability to get things done. If benchmarks are your "thing" then go for it. No need to benchmark, it is plain as the nose on your face that HDD speed is a primary bottleneck for many basic PC uses. It matters more than CPU speed, FSB speed, memory bus speed, for a lot of tasks. If you want to argue that slower HDD only causes a few seconds additional wait, well sure that's true, a few seconds over and over again, which is clearly not desired else we'd have stuck with 80486 boxes instead of upgrading every so often. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATA100 hard drive not recognized when PS/2 mouse is not attached | S. Lipson | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | July 27th 04 09:55 PM |
Large Hard Drive & BIOS upgrade problems | Lago Jardin | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | June 12th 04 02:08 PM |
Hard drive heating up | Kipper | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | May 22nd 04 10:37 PM |
Help needed: problem installing XP on new system | GJ | General | 26 | March 1st 04 10:04 PM |
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software | Timothy Daniels | General | 11 | December 12th 03 05:38 AM |