Would a dual core processor help me with this?

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

My guess is it's not a processor bottleneck.

Run Windows Performance monitor to see what is going on. Compare
before copying and during copying. Check

- percentage processor time
- percentage disk time for each hard disk (programs and DVD database)
- page faults / second

I don't have XP with me now but on win2k performance monitor is under
control panel / administrative tools / performance

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

It would likely help based on my limited experience with
Hyperthreading (Intel's cheap version of dual core before dual core
came around). I get program stutters/freeze when large amount of data
is copied suddenly (i.e. when a large download completes and get
shifted from temp folder on one drive to final destination on other
drive). However, for a brief period of time I was on a HT P4 machine,
this did not affect the other programs. Once I went back to a
non-Hyperthreading single core A64, the problem came back again.

While I've not empirically investigated this issue, I'm highly
inclined to believe that having a second virtual core helped as one
core is stalled on the disk transfer, the other can still do work.
I've no idea why this happens since in theory, DMA is supposed to use
very little CPU power.

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

If you're about to buy a new system anyway, a dual CPU is definitely the
way to go for general computing work load; if that's an Athlon64 you have
and the mbrd supports dual CPU, then you have a decision to make.:-) I'm
not sure it's going to make a huge improvement with your problem here
though. Have you run any diags to see what is going on?... get Process
Explorer from www.sysinternals.com to check on CPU usage and other activity
during the job; use HDTach from
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php to check HD speed and CPU
usage during HD I/O.

Have you checked in device manager that the HD and DVD really are connected
in the fastest, low CPU usage, UDMA mode? Once Windows decides that UDMA
has glitched it drops out of that mode... *permanently*. Check the cluster
size on your HDD - AFAIK a "convert" to NTFS makes it 512 bytes which is
just awful for what you are doing; the recommended size is 2048 bytes IIRC.
Is the HDD clean and defragged before you start the copy? When folders and
files are being deleted/recreated, Windows makes a real mess of directory
structures very quickly so a large copy like that will tend to bog down as
it progresses.

It's not clear what generation of system you have, but the newer systems
bypass the PCI Bus for transfers to/from the DVD and HDDs so that might be
enough to mitigate your problem, dual CPU or no... but I'd get the dual
anyway.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

I would throw out a guess that you would probably be at about the
"noticeable difference" level if you were to go from an Athlon64 3000+
to something like an Athlon64 X2 3800+. Dual core should definitely
help keep the system more responsive and usable when copying these
DVDs. That being said though, you're probably also going to be
running into some memory limitations in addition to processor
limitations, hence the reason why you probably wouldn't see a really
spectacular difference.

Of course, if you've currently got an AthlonXP 3000+ instead of the
newer Athlon64 3000+, then the difference may well be spectacular.
Going from the AthlonXP up to an Athlon64 X2 not only would get you
dual cores, but also each core would be faster individually AND you
would be getting more memory bandwidth and lower latency. Even going
from a Socket 754 Athlon64 3000+ to a Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 3800+
should help on the memory front, though not by nearly as much as the
jump from an AthlonXP chip.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:42:40 -0500, Tony Hill
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

I would throw out a guess that you would probably be at about the
"noticeable difference" level if you were to go from an Athlon64 3000+
to something like an Athlon64 X2 3800+.

That's what I am looking at. It seems by far the best value. I can
get one at Fry's as a combo with a probably worthless MB for $289.00
at one of their periodic promotions. Ironically it is hard to find it
that cheap without the crap ECS MB.

Dual core should definitely
help keep the system more responsive and usable when copying these
DVDs. That being said though, you're probably also going to be
running into some memory limitations in addition to processor
limitations, hence the reason why you probably wouldn't see a really
spectacular difference.

Of course, if you've currently got an AthlonXP 3000+

That's what it is -- obsolete 32 bit! And its 100% adquate for
Quickbooks, Word, Excel, e-mail, web access and my auto repair
databases -- which are AllData and Mitchell. Just sucks when UPS
brings the quarterly AllData or Mitchell DVD packages. It would be
interesting to see what dual-core does for the computer when remote
controlled with NetOp, but that's actually surprisingly brisk already.

instead of the newer Athlon64 3000+, then the difference may well be spectacular.

Talked me into it! Thanks for what sounds like a very knowledgable
reply.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

Going from the AthlonXP up to an Athlon64 X2 not only would get you
dual cores, but also each core would be faster individually AND you
would be getting more memory bandwidth and lower latency. Even going
from a Socket 754 Athlon64 3000+ to a Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 3800+
should help on the memory front, though not by nearly as much as the
jump from an AthlonXP chip.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

Dual core will make a noticeable difference, but probably somewhat
short of spectacular. Some heavy HDD activities slow down my dual
Opteron rig noticeably, even though CPU load stays fairly low. SCSI
drive(s) probably will make an impact as big as A64X2, if not even
bigger (for the task). Ever thought why servers with heavy I/O load
such as database are all SCSI? It's up to you though to decide if
this investment makes sense to you because SCSI, especially a RAID
config (RAID controller + 3 drives min. for data + separate system
drive) will cost you more than A64X2, even high end one.

NNN

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:18:53 GMT, "
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0600, Don
wrote:

Periodically I have to refresh a couple of databases by copying a
stack of DVDs to a harddrive. One susbscription consists of 10 DVDs
and the other 6, so there is no way this can be made to run at night.
The computer to which these DVDs are being copied has the following
specs: AMD Athlon 3000, 786 ram, IDE harddrives and DVD drive, DMA
enabled on all drives, Windows XP SP2. The hard drive to which the
data is copied is NOT the one from which the programs run. It is way
more than fast enough at all times except when this data is being
copied -- at which time it becomes so painfully slow as to be almost
useless. The programs I run are all business apps none of them
cutting edge enough to be written for a dual-core processor.

Would a dual-core (my choice in processors has always been AMD) setup
make:
1. A theoretical difference but not really noticeable to the user?
2. A noticeable difference?
3. A spectacular difference?

My concern is not so much to reduce the copy time as it is to be able
to keep using the box when UPS bring a stack of DVDs.

Don
www.donsautomotive.com

Dual core will make a noticeable difference, but probably somewhat
short of spectacular. Some heavy HDD activities slow down my dual
Opteron rig noticeably, even though CPU load stays fairly low. SCSI
drive(s) probably will make an impact as big as A64X2, if not even
bigger (for the task). Ever thought why servers with heavy I/O load
such as database are all SCSI? It's up to you though to decide if
this investment makes sense to you because SCSI, especially a RAID
config (RAID controller + 3 drives min. for data + separate system
drive) will cost you more than A64X2, even high end one.

Is this SCSI advantage still true vs. a modern SATA-II system? I'm talking
about comparable spin & platter speeds for the drives - not the 15000rpm
SCSI jobs. In fact if the SCSI has to run off a PCI Bus card, vs. a PCI-X
one, I'd think the SATA-II, which usually has the controller integrated
into the chipset internal paths, thus bypassing PCI, would be a hands down
winner.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:29:10 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:

Is this SCSI advantage still true vs. a modern SATA-II system? I'm talking
about comparable spin & platter speeds for the drives - not the 15000rpm
SCSI jobs. In fact if the SCSI has to run off a PCI Bus card, vs. a PCI-X
one, I'd think the SATA-II, which usually has the controller integrated
into the chipset internal paths, thus bypassing PCI, would be a hands down
winner.

One of the cases when my system loses most of its responsiveness is
when Symantec antivirus (10 Corp.) loads the def update. The Task
Manager CPU load icon goes only a hair above idle (not a surprise - it
is a dual Opteron after all!), and there are hundreds of megs of free
RAM available. The only heavy activity is HDD - SATA (not II though)
7200rpm 8mb cache Hitachi. Maybe it's because VIA SATA controller
sucks, or just because such are all non-SCSI drives. But since such
moments are very few and far between, and usually last only a few
seconds, I see no justification to go SCSI. If something regularly
slowed down my system for hours every time, as it is the case with OP,
I'd give SCSI a serious consideration, even though my motherboard is
not equipped with PCI-X or even PCIe, and as you mentioned PCI based
SCSI controllers take away a good part of SCSI advantage.

NNN

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:28:55 GMT, "
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:29:10 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:

Is this SCSI advantage still true vs. a modern SATA-II system? I'm talking
about comparable spin & platter speeds for the drives - not the 15000rpm
SCSI jobs. In fact if the SCSI has to run off a PCI Bus card, vs. a PCI-X
one, I'd think the SATA-II, which usually has the controller integrated
into the chipset internal paths, thus bypassing PCI, would be a hands down
winner.

One of the cases when my system loses most of its responsiveness is
when Symantec antivirus (10 Corp.) loads the def update. The Task
Manager CPU load icon goes only a hair above idle (not a surprise - it
is a dual Opteron after all!), and there are hundreds of megs of free
RAM available. The only heavy activity is HDD - SATA (not II though)
7200rpm 8mb cache Hitachi. Maybe it's because VIA SATA controller
sucks, or just because such are all non-SCSI drives. But since such
moments are very few and far between, and usually last only a few
seconds, I see no justification to go SCSI. If something regularly
slowed down my system for hours every time, as it is the case with OP,
I'd give SCSI a serious consideration, even though my motherboard is
not equipped with PCI-X or even PCIe, and as you mentioned PCI based
SCSI controllers take away a good part of SCSI advantage.

So what is it about SCSI that is better which makes it the choice? I tend
to think blame for your unreponsiveness during Symantec AV update is shared
mainly between M$ and Symantec. Try a full system scan with Symantec AV
and you won't see the same unreponsive behavior if you have the default
(low) priority set for the scan. Of course it could be that Symantec sees
AV defn update as an urgent, necessarily higher priority task. Personally
I'm in utter digust with Symantec and they will not see one more single red
cent from me.:-(

--
Rgds, George Macdonald