Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print
Comparing HDDs - strange results (Read 52847 times)
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #120 - Sep 9th, 2004 at 7:21pm
 
It's the first person to acknowledge that there is a problem with that chipset and that they knew about it ...... Lips Sealed ...... or maybe NightOwl and me presented enough evidence.

BTW, did You get my PM's?

Christer
 

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 #121 - Sep 10th, 2004 at 11:30am
 
Well, that's progress. Getting them to admit a problem. I don't know why companies are so adamant against it.

I always forget to check PMs, sorry. I'll go there now.
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #122 - Sep 17th, 2004 at 6:18am
 
I've had the opportunity to do some tests on a system based on ABIT VA-10 with VIA VT8378 (KM400) / VT8235 (southbridge), AMD Sempron 2600+, 512 MB PC2700, two Maxtor Plus8 - 40 GB.

C: (NTFS) on HDD-0 to E: (NTFS) on HDD-1
Create - 860 MB/min
Check - 3533 MB/min

C: (NTFS) on HDD-0 to F: (FAT32) on HDD-1
Create - 248 MB/min
Check - 315 MB/min

If we compare that to the transfer rates from 7K250 to 60GXP:

C: (NTFS) on 7K250 to F: (NTFS) on 60GXP
Create - 802 MB/min
Check - 2229 MB/min

C: (NTFS) on 7K250 to G: (FAT32) on 60GXP
Create - 342 MB/min
Check - 390 MB/min

The Plus8 and 60GXP are 2 MB cache drives and are both performing better, when the target partition is FAT32, than the 7K250 and Seagate 7200.7 which are 8 MB cache drives.

Anyway, the tests on the ABIT VA-10 based hardware have convinced me that my next motherboard will not include anything VIA.

Christer
 

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


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #123 - Aug 11th, 2005 at 1:24am
 
...
Christer -

Serendipity strikes again - while winding up my successful attempts to restore the temporarily-lost capability of my "purpose-built" Iomega 80GB HDD USB 2.0 External Drive to function in Norton Ghost 2003 with the stock Norton/Iomega drivers extracted from Guest.exe, I blundered into a phenomenon not unlike this thread of long standing considering the performance disparity between the NTFS and FAT32 file system formats under particular hardware configurations.

To recap, after using PowerQuest Partition Magic 8 to partition the preformatted FAT32 Iomega External Drive I ruefully discovered that I was unable to restore its former capability and had become reliant on NightOwl's Panasonic Universal USB Driver routine in order to conduct Ghost 2003 operations.  Suffering from a degree of neurotic obsessiveness, I was bound and determined 'to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again' - and I succeeded. The trick (CLICK HERE) is to zero-fill the Iomega disk using the Ghost 2003 DOS-based utility GDisk with the /diskwipe switch and then with no preparation whatsoever immediately submit the disk to the Seagate DiscWizard in Windows; once there, configure a single primary FAT32 partition not-to-exeed 32GB and close out followed by a reboot into SAFE MODE.  Restarting DiscWizard: (1) click on the Maintenance button; (2) select Partitioning and Formatting Options; and (3) select Grow a Partition whereupon the process completes itself. Theoretically Windows XP FAT32 volumes larger than 32 GB have to emanate from other operating systems, but this DiscWizard is a "loophole" utility running inside XP that let the 16kb cluster size remain static right up until the capacity limit of the HDD was attained (luckily the Iomega HDD was Seagate-compliant, but not all HDDs are).

Once all this had transpired, I began to consider if such an extraordinary reconfiguration of other FAT32 primary partitions and logical drives would reinvigorate them so as to be more on par with their NTFS counterparts.  On my Dell Dimension 8100, I now have a 60GB IBM/Hitachi DeskStar IDE HDD (IC35L060AVV207-0) set up as a SLAVE inside my PC to serve primarily as a first-line repository for the Norton Ghost 2003 Backup images spun off my MASTER 120GB Maxtor SATA HDD (6Y120MO); likewise, I have an 80GB Western Digital IDE SLAVE HDD (WDC WD800JB-00JJA0) installed in my Dell Dimension 8300.  With my external HDDs mounted in enclosure kits, I typically set them up as a single extended partition - no primary, no active - and split them into two logical drives of equal volume with the leading drive formatted NTFS and the trailing drive formatted FAT32; with external HDDs, I suffer no performance penalty
but with internal SLAVE IDE HDDs set up exactly the same way on both my Dell Dimension 8100 and on my Dimension 8300 as well, I have been consistently experiencing poor performance with FAT32 ...
UNTIL I EMPLOYED THAT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED ABOVE, THAT IS !!!


Without any tables or graphs at this stage, let me say that a routine Ghost 2003 "partition-to-image" Backup to the FAT32 logical drive on the 8100 SLAVE HDD that heretofore took 22-to-23 minutes now takes 10-to-11 minutes; albeit the same task to the SLAVE NTFS logical drive now takes 4-to-5 minutes but unfortunately there are no available logs on the pre-transition period.  The situation on the Dimension 8300 is even more noteworthy: whereas heretofore a Ghost 2003 "disk-to-image" Backup to the NTFS logical drive was consuming 35-to-36 minutes, it is now taking 16-to-17 minutes in NTFS -
but only 17-to-171/2 minutes in FAT32
(again, no available logs on the pre-transition period).

Therefore, the question I pose to you is to what degree - if any - could a reconfiguration such as I describe above enhance or afflict the performance of HDDs tested in the FAT32 file system format back upstream in this thread. Also, a bit of an aside - the 60GB SLAVE Hitachi IDE HDD has a 2MB cache versus an 8MB cache for the 80GB SLAVE Western Digital IDE HDD.  

El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
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 #124 - Aug 11th, 2005 at 1:47am
 
El_Pescador

Interesting stuff!!!

Quote:
UNTIL I EMPLOYED THAT CONFIGURATION DESCRIBED ABOVE, THAT IS !!!


Are you using Gdisk to wipe the HDD, and then setting up a single FAT32 Primary--less than 32 GB, 16 kb cluster size, and then Growiing it?

Do you think it's the cluster size that is responsible for the better performance?
 

No question is stupid...but, possibly the answers are Wink !&&
 
IP Logged
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #125 - Aug 11th, 2005 at 3:18am
 
NightOwl wrote on Aug 11th, 2005 at 1:47am:
"... Are you using Gdisk to wipe the HDD, and then setting up a single FAT32 Primary--less than 32 GB, 16 kb cluster size, and then Growiing it?

Do you think it's the cluster size that is responsible for the better performance?..."

GDisk n /diskwipe
only - then straight to Windows XP and let Seagate DiscWizard find the target HDD "hands-off".  I have done several repetitions, and my latest twist is to let DiscWizard lay out a NTFS partition by default for a bit over half of the disk (anything over 35GB) - then lay out about 25GB which is FAT32 w/16kb cluster by default so as to leave the remainder unencumbered until the second pass in SAFE MODE using the GROW command.

Then - and only then - do I go into Partition Magic 8.0 where I delete the primary 34GB+ NTFS partition (its weird, but once the primary emerged from DiscWizard unformatted!) and use PM8 to recreate it as a NTFS logical drive expanded to the maximum capacity of the HDD while sharing the single extended partition with the GROWN-UP FAT32 logical drive containing 16kb clusters.  Bottom line - neither primary partition nor active partition are present - and as to cluster size, quien sabe' ? Roll Eyes

El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #126 - Aug 11th, 2005 at 10:08am
 
Hi El_Pescador,
thanks for remembering this issue!

I have only skimmed through Your post and will have to get back later. I have a feeling that questions may arise!

Christer
 

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


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #127 - Aug 11th, 2005 at 5:44pm
 
Christer wrote on Aug 11th, 2005 at 10:08am:
"... I have a feeling that questions may arise!..."
El_Pescador wrote on May 15th, 2005 at 12:02am:
Well, I have turned up another USB 2.0 device controller that requires NightOwl's Universal Panasonic USB Driver to be able to function in Norton Ghost 2003. The PPA Metal Gear Box Model 2179780SAU2 combo USB 2.0/SATA external HDD enclosure kit has
'USB\Vid_067b&Pid_2507...' as Hardware Id
in Device Manager.  Be advised that only IDE/ATA HDDs will work in this unique device - SATA HDDs will not fit.

In the USB 2.0 mode, Ghost 2003 was totally dysfunctional in PC-DOS using the Norton/Iomega USB drivers.  With the Panasonic drivers, the Western Digital IDE drive was functional only in the FAT32 file system format - and just barely so with the Intel onboard USB host controllers (see table below).

Switching to SATA mode was a totally different story for the combo enclosure kit.  As evident in the table, the IDE-to-SATA conversion was just a couple of minutes slower than a native SATA NCQ HDD mounted in a conventional SATA enclosure for comparison purposes when both were tested in sequence while connected to the same SATA port on the systemboard.
 
img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/El_Pescador/eekMG.jpg

El Pescador

Many questions can arise around just one individual device, i.e., the 80GB Western Digital IDE SLAVE HDD (Model No. WDC WD800JB-00JJA0 - Serial No. WD-WCAM93132923) and the various ways it can be linked to the host Dell Dimension 8300 desktop: (1) as an internal SLAVE HDD linked to an IDE port on the MoBo via ribbon cable; (2) as an EXTERNAL HDD linked to a USB 2.0 port on the MoBo via USB cable; (3) as an EXTERNAL HDD linked to a USB 2.0 port on a PCI-to-USB2 host adapter card via USB cable; (4) as an EXTERNAL HDD linked to a FireWire port on a PCI-to-FireWire host adapter card via FireWire cable; and (5) most strangely of all, as an EXTERNAL HDD linked to a SATA port on the MoBo via SATA cable routed through an IDE-to-SATA conversion bridge chipset within the enclosure referred to in the graphic above (not included is the v2.20 release of
usbaspi.sys
for the Panasonic Universal USB Driver routine).  These different modes of connection will demonstrate varying levels of performance disparity between the NTFS and the FAT32 file system format partitions ranging from NULL performance for either of the formats to NEAR-IDENTICAL performance with both formats.  Toss in the concept of having a manipulated outsized FAT32 partition - on a disk with neither a primary nor an active partition - and the permutations become positively unwieldy.

El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #128 - Aug 12th, 2005 at 7:32pm
 
El_Pescador wrote on Aug 11th, 2005 at 3:18am:
"START QUOTE...
"...
GDisk n /diskwipe
only - then straight to Windows XP and let Seagate DiscWizard find the target HDD "hands-off".  I have done several repetitions, and my latest twist is to let DiscWizard lay out a NTFS partition by default for a bit over half of the disk (anything over 35GB) - then lay out about 25GB which is FAT32 w/16kb cluster by default so as to leave the remainder unencumbered until the second pass in SAFE MODE using the GROW command.

Then - and only then - do I go into Partition Magic 8.0 where I
delete the primary 34GB+ NTFS partition (its weird, but once the primary emerged from DiscWizard unformatted!) and use PM8 to recreate it as a NTFS logical drive expanded to the maximum capacity of the HDD while sharing the single extended partition with the GROWN-UP FAT32 logical drive containing 16kb clusters.
 Bottom line - neither primary partition nor active partition are present - and as to cluster size, quien sabe' ?..."

Quote:
...STOP QUOTE"

Substitute the quote below for the statement in
RED
above:

"... Then - and only then - do I go into Partition Magic 8.0 where I
CONVERT the primary 34GB+ NTFS partition to a logical drive to share the single extended partition with the GROWN-UP FAT32 logical drive containing 16kb clusters..."


El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #129 - Aug 12th, 2005 at 7:57pm
 
Hi El_Pescador!

I appreciate You efforts to share Your findings and make colourful and sometimes animated posts. I don't know if it's only me and my eyesight (I have new glasses since a few months ago) but I can't read some of the text, especially the text in red colour. It gets all "flourescent" ...... Cry ...... kind of ...... Embarrassed ...... and illegible. It seems like red on a grey background is the problem for me.

In a friendly spirit,
Christer



 

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


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #130 - Aug 12th, 2005 at 8:18pm
 
HOWZZATTT ? Shocked


El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #131 - Aug 13th, 2005 at 11:07am
 
Much better ...... Smiley ...... !

Thanks,
Christer
 

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


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #132 - Aug 20th, 2005 at 2:38pm
 
Christer wrote on Aug 11th, 2005 at 10:08am:
"... thanks for remembering this issue!.. I have a feeling that questions may arise!.."

Christer and NightOwl -


I have uncovered and
pinned down
the extremely fascinating material that allows my Seagate, Western Digital, and Hitachi HDDs to function at equivalent speeds in either NTFS or FAT32 file system format during Norton Ghost 2003 Backup and Integrity Check procedures - but not with Maxtor HDDs.  Are you willing
once again to pick up the gauntlet thrown down?
... LOL !!!

El Pescador
 
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #133 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 4:38am
 
Hi El_Pescador!

I understand it as You'd like me/us to make the same "experiment" with one of our HDDs to find out if it works. At the time being and into the nearest future, I will have very little time at my disposal to do that but I would like to find out.

I don't want to mess with my current two 7K250's because they are in use and working flawlessly but I have my disused 60GXP that I can do some tests on. The 60GXP was/is not as bad with FAT32 as the 7K250 but the tests would be interesting no matter what.

I will build a new computer for a friends daughter ...... Roll Eyes ...... and will have two 7K250 SATAs to play with for a day or two. Maybe that will be my best opportunity.

I will have to reread Your recent posts to recapitulate Your methods and results. I do not own or have access to any partitioning program for resizing and that may be a problem.

As soon as I have the time ...... Undecided ...... !

Christer
 

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


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #134 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 12:27pm
 
Christer wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 4:38am:
"... but I have my disused 60GXP that I can do some tests on. The 60GXP was/is not as bad with FAT32 as the 7K250 but the tests would be interesting no matter what... will have two 7K250 SATAs to play with... do not have access to any partitioning program for resizing and that may be a problem..."

My favorite "low-level formatting" tool, i.e. zero-fill routine, is included with every copy of Ghost 2003 and is a DOS-based utitlity called GDisk.  The routine I use is the switch
'GDISK
drive no.
/DISKWIPE'
.

I will be glad to mail you one of my numerous copies of the Seagate installation CDs included with each retail HDD kit, but you may prefer to download the latest counterpart material from their WebSite:

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/howto/use_dwse.html

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/howto/use_dwse_maint.html


The BIOS-tricking software is called Dynamic Drive Overlay (DDO), and despite warnings about no support will be extended to non-Seagate users, it has worked for me with Western Digital, Hitachi and whatever brand is encased in my Iomega External 80GB HDD -
but it rejects my Maxtor HDDs
.  In fact, I was thoroughly disgusted with my three identical 80GB Western Digital IDE disks (WDC WD800JB-OOJJA0) as internal SLAVE HDDs in regard to disparity between the NTFS and FAT32 file system formats - but not when mounted in external enclosures.  However, since installing the Seagate Dynamic Drive Overlay, the WDC WD800JB-OOJJA0s now outperform every other brand of HDD I have tested in the SLAVE role when performing Ghost 2003 procedures with a FAT32 logical drive on the Destination HDD.  Do keep in mind that all the remarks above relate to IDE HDDs - so one caveat is that the technique may not work on every model in the Hitachi line, particularly native SATA HDDs.  

El Pescador
 

...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print