Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print
Comparing HDDs - strange results (Read 139481 times)
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #105 - Jun 22nd, 2004 at 4:52pm
 
NightOwl,
I was contemplating a new round of e-mails to Symantec, Hitachi and EPOX but I believe that I would fry my brain in the process!

We have two VIA chipsets (mine and Yours) giving us trouble and the Intel chipset on the other computer that I mentioned displaying slow performance on FAT32 may require some more investigation. I will find out the exact computer model and go Google on it.

Judged by Your latest results, it seems like the key words are VIA, FAT32 and TARGET PARTITION, which equals slow performance.

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 

NightOwl-
Übermensch
*****
Offline


"I tought I saw a puddy
tat...."

Posts: 2094
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound-USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #106 - Jun 28th, 2004 at 12:48am
 
Christer

As you recall, my first tests with the Seagate hard drives showed very good results whether on the HighPoint controller or the VIA controller.  When I repeated the test, the results were much different.


Quote:
I repeated the tests using the Seagates... I wanted to confirm my findings, and low and behold, the results were different this time!!!! Computers, ya gotta love 'em!

I put one Seagate on the VIA primary channel as master and one Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and sending the image from the VIA Seagate to the HighPoint Seagate, I got a creation speed of 983 MB/min (slower than the 'used IBM to Seagate of 1114 MB/min!), and now when I imaged from the HighPoint Seagate to the VIA Seagate, I now got 142 MB/min creation speed! I do not know what has changed to make the results different this time, but I tried serveral times and each test was similar in results!

If you recall, on my original post I got an image creation rate of 1195 MB/min going from the Seagate on the HighPoint to the Seagate on the VIA controller, and got 1363 MB/Min going from the Seagate on VIA to the Seagate on the HighPoint controller.

Well, after your test results of imaging Fat32 vs NTFS formated partitions, I decided to go back and repeat the tests using just the Seagates and varying the formatting of the partitions and here are the results:

In each case, I'm showing the final image creation speed, and using 'no compression' to create the images.

One Seagate (120 GB) hard drive was on the HighPoint Controller, primary channel as master and the other Seagate (120 GB) was on the VIA Controller, primary channel as master, and the arrows show the direction of the image creation:

On HighPoint---------------On VIA------------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS   1185 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     944 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS   1243 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    136 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32  1241 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32     140 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32   1265 MB/min

Apparently, just by accident, I must have chose the best combinations to image from HighPoint to VIA or from VIA to HighPoint on my first tests.  And it's clear you do not want to image to a hard drive on the VIA controller if the partition is FAT32, but a NTFS partition is quite good.


************************

I then switched the Seagate on the VIA Controller to the HighPoint Controller, secondary channel as slave, and left the other Seagate on the HighPoint Controller, primary channel as master:

On HighPoint-------------On HighPoint-------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS   1110 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS   1145 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS   1054 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    767 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32  1218 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    916 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32  1291 MB/min

Now with the Seagates both on the HighPoint controller, there are some differences (and I can only wonder why Smiley ), but not the dramatic differences seen imaging to a VIA FAT32 partition.

************************

Now I put both Seagates on the VIA controller, one on the primary as master and the other on the secondary as master:

   On VIA-------------------On VIA----------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS   1171 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS   1341 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     829 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     144 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    131 MB/min 
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    144 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    135 MB/min 
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32  1300 MB/min

Again, imaging to a FAT32 partition on the VIA controller was not the best option.

So, it looks like if you have a VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip on your system, you would get much better performance if you image to a NTFS partition rather than to a FAT32 formated partition.
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are  Wink !
(This is an old *NightOwl* user account--not in current use.  Current account is NightOwl without a dash at the end.)
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #107 - Jun 28th, 2004 at 3:48pm
 
NightOwl,

Your latest figures confirm that the issue is with FAT32 and VIA. It puts Hitachi in the clear since Your figures are for Seagates.

This week I start my holidays and will be more or less separated from my computer for the next two weeks. I will not start a new correspondence with Symantec, EPOX and VIA as an addition, until I know that I will be available for their responses. I will also mail Hitachi to tell them about our findings.

I will check in every now and then from other computers, though.

I will keep You posted when I send the mails!

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
NightOwl-
Übermensch
*****
Offline


"I tought I saw a puddy
tat...."

Posts: 2094
Olympia, WA--Puget Sound-USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #108 - Jun 28th, 2004 at 4:33pm
 
Christer

Have a good holiday!

Quote:
It puts Hitachi in the clear


Actually, looking at the results, it seems that the newer hard drives from both Hitachi and Seagate are performing less well than the older IBM's. 

I'm thinking that maybe the newer hard drives have been tweaked for NTFS, and in the process, it has somehow effected the compatibility of the VIA chipset with FAT32 and the newer hard drives firmware performance.
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are  Wink !
(This is an old *NightOwl* user account--not in current use.  Current account is NightOwl without a dash at the end.)
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #109 - Jun 29th, 2004 at 4:03pm
 
Quote:
Christer

Have a good holiday!


Thanks, NightOwl!

I'll do my best to go into "idling mode".

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #110 - Jul 23rd, 2004 at 5:58am
 
Hi guys!

My vacation is over but I still have some time off and the purpose of that is doing nothing ...... Wink ...... isn't it. I have yet to find the inspiration to continue or renew my correspondence with the different parties but eventually I'll get around to it.

I'll be back!

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 

philykid
Guest




Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #111 - Jul 23rd, 2004 at 9:01am
 
Enjoy your vacation. I'm still watching this thread, a great mystery.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #112 - Aug 10th, 2004 at 6:06pm
 
After a bit of cutting, pasting and creative editing ...... Wink ...... I sent this message to EPOX:

Quote:
Dear Sir's and Ladies!

I have tried to correspond with You on this issue before but have not received any response other than being prompted for more information.

I have a problem regarding transfer rates when performing Ghost operations, creating, checking and restoring Images. In the meantime, a friend and I have done some further research on our respective computers and have come to the conclusion that the VIA chipset (VIA VT82C686B) is the common denominator.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My setup and results:

Motherboard - EPOX 8KTA3 / VIA VT82C686B

Two HDDs connected to IDE0 as Master and Slave respectively.

The Master (Hitachi 7K250 - HDS722512VLAT80) has three partitions:
C: - NTFS (system)
D: - NTFS
E: - FAT32

The Slave (Hitachi 7K250 - HDS722512VLAT80) has three partitions:
F: - NTFS
G: - NTFS
H: - FAT32

Creating an Image of C: - NTFS to G: - NTFS, the transfer rate is 809 MB/min
Creating an Image of C: - NTFS to H: - FAT32, the transfer rate is 136 MB/min

Creating an Image to a FAT32 partition is approximately six times slower than to a NTFS partition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My friend's setup and results:

Abit KG7-Raid motherboard. It has two IDE hard drive controllers, the standard VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip and a built in HighPoint 370/372 Raid controller chip which can be used either as a Raid controller or just another IDE controller for additional hard drives.

A matched pair of Seagate 120 GB, model ST3120026A, with a mix of NTFS and FAT32 partitions, connected as below:


On HighPoint-------------------On VIA------------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1185 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     944 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1243 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    136 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1241 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    140 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1265 MB/min

It's clear you do not want to image to a hard drive on the VIA controller if the partition is FAT32, but a NTFS partition is quite good.


On HighPoint----------------On HighPoint--------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1110 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1145 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1054 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    767 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1218 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    916 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1291 MB/min

Now with the Seagates both on the HighPoint controller, there are some differences but not the dramatic differences seen imaging to a VIA FAT32 partition.


   On VIA-----------------------On VIA-------------Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1171 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1341 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     829 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     144 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    131 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    144 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    135 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1300 MB/min

Again, imaging to a FAT32 partition on the VIA controller was not the best option.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like if you have a VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip on your system, you would get much better performance if you image to a NTFS partition rather than to a FAT32 formated partition.

Since there are conciderations indicating that storing Ghost Images on a FAT32 partition is the better option, this speed issue is a problem.

We would appreciate any comments and/or directions on how to get better performance on a FAT32 target partition on VT82C686B.

I realize that this is not an isolated EPOX problem but I have not found any contact details to VIA. That's the reason why I still try my luck with You and depend on Your assistance!


Best regards,
Christer Engdahl
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #113 - Aug 12th, 2004 at 6:46am
 
I sent the message to EPOX-UK and received a reply from EPOX-NL. There was a note in the reply(ies) that they were confidential and not to be reproduced.
However, my response(s) aren't confidential and I'm sure You can "fill in the blanks":

Quote:
Dear Tom!

Slow performance from NTFS to FAT32 may be concidered to be normal if the difference is up to 25 % but not if it is six (6) times slower. I have Imaged several systems based on different chipsets and only VIA displays these remarkably inferior transfer rates. The results, provided by my friend, were submitted to You in order to demonstrate that it was not HDD related but it was VIA related.

If this is EPOX's final standpoint, then my next build will not include anything EPOX or VIA.

I would like to discuss this issue with VIA and would appreciate if You can provide contact details to VIA support.

Regards,
Christer


Quote:
Dear Tom!

I forgot to point out that Norton Ghost performs its operations under DOS. There are no Windows drivers loaded. The operation mode is PIO and there may be differences in performance between different systems due to CPU speed but the results obtained by me and my friend are quite consistent.

Regards,
Christer


Quote:
Dear Tom!

Even if Ghost is launched from the Windows interface, it reboots the computer to DOS when the operation is carried out and restarts Windows when complete.

I have also come to the conlusion, which I pointed out in my mail, that it is not an isolated EPOX issue but pertains to all motherboards with that chipset (VT82C686B). I would discuss this issue with VIA, if I had contact details to VIA support.

The processor is a factor since the operation is in PIO mode. Mine is an Athlon T-bird 1 GHz / 266 MHz FSB, my friend's is an Athlon XP 2100+ @ 1.746 GHz. The specific HDD is also a factor and since they differ too we can only take the transfer rates as indications but in both cases they are approximately six times slower to FAT32 than to NTFS.

The objective of submitting my friend's results is not to compare the respective performance but to rule out the possibility of a HDD incompatibility or a Ghost incompatibility.

Thanks for Your time,
Christer


In the meantime, I have also sent a similar e-mail to VIA Technologies GmbH in Germany. On the web, there was no specific e-mail addy to any technical support but I found a general e-mail addy which I used. My expectations are not high ...... Lips Sealed ...... !

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #114 - Aug 31st, 2004 at 7:33am
 
Well, lucky me ...... Lips Sealed ...... that I didn't hold my breath ...... Grin ...... !

I have made one final attempt to get a productive answer from Symantec Support and this is what I sent:

Quote:
Dear Sir's and Ladies!

I have a problem regarding transfer rates when performing Ghost operations, creating, checking and restoring Images. Ghost operations are carried out using Ghost Boot Disks. The transfer mode is PIO and all attempts to force (U)DMA using switches have been unsuccessful. A friend and I have done some research on our respective computers and have come to the conclusion that the VIA chipset (VIA VT82C686B) is the common denominator. My friend's results are to rule out any HDD incompatibility in my specific case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My setup and results:

Motherboard - EPOX 8KTA3 / VIA VT82C686B

Two HDDs connected to IDE0 as Master and Slave respectively.

The Master (Hitachi 7K250 - HDS722512VLAT80) has three partitions:
C: - NTFS (system)
D: - NTFS
E: - FAT32

The Slave (Hitachi 7K250 - HDS722512VLAT80) has three partitions:
F: - NTFS
G: - NTFS
H: - FAT32

Creating an Image of C: - NTFS to G: - NTFS, the transfer rate is 809 MB/min
Creating an Image of C: - NTFS to H: - FAT32, the transfer rate is 136 MB/min

Creating an Image to a FAT32 partition is approximately six times slower than to a NTFS partition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My friend's setup and results:

Abit KG7-Raid motherboard. It has two IDE hard drive controllers, the standard VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip and a built in HighPoint 370/372 Raid controller chip which can be used either as a Raid controller or just another IDE controller for additional hard drives.

A matched pair of Seagate 120 GB, model ST3120026A, with a mix of NTFS and FAT32 partitions, connected as below:

On HighPoint -------------- On VIA -------------- Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1185 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     944 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1243 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    136 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1241 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    140 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1265 MB/min

It's clear you do not want to image to a hard drive on the VIA controller if the partition is FAT32, but a NTFS partition is quite good.

On HighPoint -------------- On HighPoint ---- Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1110 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1145 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     786 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1054 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    767 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1218 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    916 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1291 MB/min

Now with the Seagates both on the HighPoint controller, there are some differences but not the dramatic differences seen imaging to a VIA FAT32 partition.

On VIA ------------------------ On VIA --------------- Speed

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate NTFS     1171 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate NTFS     1341 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate NTFS     829 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate NTFS     144 MB/min

Seagate FAT32 >>>>> Seagate FAT32    131 MB/min
Seagate FAT32 <<<<< Seagate FAT32    144 MB/min

Seagate NTFS  >>>>> Seagate FAT32    135 MB/min
Seagate NTFS  <<<<< Seagate FAT32    1300 MB/min

Again, imaging to a FAT32 partition on the VIA controller was not the best option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like if you have a VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip on your system, you would get much better performance if you image to a NTFS partition rather than to a FAT32 formated partition.

Since there are conciderations indicating that storing Ghost Images on a FAT32 partition is the better option, this speed issue is a problem.

We would appreciate any comments and/or directions on how to get better performance on a FAT32 target partition on VT82C686B.


Best regards,
Christer Engdahl

SS usually provides a response and even if the response not always contains an answer ...... Undecided ...... my expectations are a bit higher.

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #115 - Sep 1st, 2004 at 1:45pm
 
The reply from Symantec Support:

Quote:
Christer, the differences in speed you are experiencing can be caused
by the way Ghost is accessing the drives, by the performance of the
drives themselves, and\or by the controller the drives are running on.
Ghost does not support RAID in any form, so you may want to test with
a controller that does not have RAID capability.

Symantec does not test with any specific controllers, so I am unable
to make any detailed comments on what you are experiencing with this
particular hardware.

You can also try some of the drive access switches outlined in the
following document. Here's that link:

Title: 'Switches: Drive Geometry'
Document ID: 1998082609375125
Web URL:
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ghost.nsf/docid/1998082609375125&src=w

Please let us know if you have additional questions on Ghost.

Best regards,

Stephen May
Symantec Online Technical Support

Stephen's comment on Ghost not supporting RAID and that I should try a controller that does not support RAID is a bit odd ...... ??? ...... I didn't say that RAID was configured and on that controller the speed to FAT32 was "normal".

I have already tried the switches that he suggests but will try them once more and I will also repeat my attempts using PC-DOS.

I do, however, believe that this is the end of the line and that my issue remains unresolved.

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #116 - Sep 1st, 2004 at 6:25pm
 
After having confirmed my previous findings regarding the use of switches, I decided to send another message informing that they don't work properly (and to admit to a mistake):

Quote:
Hello Stephen!

First of all, I made a serious mistake, I quote from my first
message:

"The transfer mode is PIO and
all attempts to force (U)DMA using switches have been unsuccessful."

That is not the case but the other way around. The transfer mode is
UDMA and I have tried to use the -fnu switch to force PIO mode.

I have created Ghost Boot Disks with these switches:

-ffi -split=650 -auto

-ffx -split=650 -auto

They appear in autoexec.bat on the floppy but only Spanning and
AutoName appear as active switches in ghosterr.txt.

If I, booted from the GBDs, go to Options > Harddisk Access and mark
the option there and save, then a new file is written to the floppy,
Ghost.ini, and then the corresponding switch appears as active in
ghosterr.txt but there is no difference in performance.

I have also created GBDs with these switches:

-fnu -split=650 -auto

They appear in autoexec.bat on the floppy but only Spanning and
AutoName appear as active switches in ghosterr.txt.

There is no option to force PIO (-fnu) in Options > Harddisk Access
and as a concequence, I have not been able to make that switch
active.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #117 - Sep 3rd, 2004 at 9:17am
 
A little more reading ...... Wink ...... !

From Stephen to me:

Quote:
Try this test:

On the floppy that contains the autoexec.bat, add the -DD, -FNU, and
-FNI switches. The -DD outputs information to a file named
ghststat.txt that will be written in the Ghost folder on the floppy.
Once this file has been written, open it and you will see that the
-FNU and -FNI switches have been included in how Ghost is being run.


From me to Stephen:

Quote:
Stephen,

"On the floppy that contains the autoexec.bat, add the -DD, -FNU, and
-FNI switches. The -DD outputs information to a file named
ghststat.txt that will be written in the Ghost folder on the floppy.
Once this file has been written, open it and you will see that the
-FNU and -FNI switches have been included in how Ghost is being run."

There are two autoexec.bat, one on each of the two floppies and I edited both according to Your suggestion. The below is cut and pasted from ghststat.exe:

*********************************
Date   : Fri Sep  3 13:03:12 2004
Error Number: (0)
Message: Stats Dump
Version: 2003.793 (Dec 17 2003, Build=793)
Command line arguments: -dd -fnu -fni -split=650 -auto
Active Switches :
      Spanning
      AutoName
=>
=>
Drive 128

Int 13h
Total Sectors     16450560
Bytes per Sector  512
MB                8032
Cylinders         1024
Heads             255
Sectors per Track 63

Extended Int 13h (Active)
Total Sectors     241254720
Bytes per Sector  512
MB                117800
Cylinders         16383
Heads             16
Sectors per Track 63
*********************************

The switches seem to be active but they are not registered as such at the top of the textfile. -fni removed UDMA but -fnu didn't force PIO but Extended Int 13h. No difference in performance

Next, I added the -fna switch and the below is cut and pasted from ghststat.exe:

*********************************
Date   : Fri Sep  3 13:22:54 2004
Error Number: (0)
Message: Stats Dump
Version: 2003.793 (Dec 17 2003, Build=793)
Command line arguments: -dd -fna -fnu -fni -split=650 -auto
Active Switches :
      Spanning
      AutoName
=>
=>
Drive 128

Int 13h
Total Sectors     16450560
Bytes per Sector  512
MB                8032
Cylinders         1024
Heads             255
Sectors per Track 63

Extended Int 13h (Active)
Total Sectors     241254720
Bytes per Sector  512
MB                117800
Cylinders         16383
Heads             16
Sectors per Track 63
*********************************

The same result as in the previous test and no difference in performance.

Finally, I removed the -fna switch and added the -fnx switch as a last attempt to force PIO but it failed with a ghosterr.txt. The reason being that the only alternative left was Int 13h. I actually expected this.

Could it be that the -fnu switch (force PIO) only works with the corporate edition and that it doesn't work with the consumer version?

I actually don't think PIO would produce improved performance but I believe that there is an incompatibility issue between the VIA chipset and Ghost.

Regards,
Christer

Noone can say that I don't exhaust all options ...... Lips Sealed ...... !

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #118 - Sep 9th, 2004 at 1:51pm
 
Posting the error messages revealed my version of Norton Ghost ......

Quote:
Christer, unfortunately, we will be unable to continue this thread, as you are running the consumer version of Ghost, but posting questions in the Ghost Enterprise Discussion Forums.

Please resubmit your issue to the following link, where a Ghost 2003 Technician will be happy to assist you. Here's that link:

http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/ghost/ghost_2003_info_solve_error.html

I posted the question, including all information submitted to the "enterprize guy" and the answer was short and probably the most accurate so far ......

Quote:
Hello Christer,

Welcome to Symantec Online Technical Support.

In your message you wrote:
It looks like if you have a VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip on your system, you would get much better performance if you image to a NTFS partition rather than to a FAT32 formated partition. Since there are considerations indicating that storing Ghost Images on a FAT32 partition is the better option, this speed issue is a problem.

Christer, thanks for the detailed information and co-operation. Symantec is aware of this issue, and there is no solution at this time. We will continue to track this issue, and the knowledge base documents will be updated if new information becomes available or a solution is found. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Regards,

Anand
Symantec Authorized Technical Support
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Rad
Radministrator
*****
Offline


Sufferin' succotash

Posts: 4090
Newport Beach, California


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #119 - Sep 9th, 2004 at 3:59pm
 
Quote:
Symantec is aware of this issue, and there is no solution at this time.


Are they referring to a performance problem with the Via southbridge?
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print