Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 
Send Topic Print
Comparing HDDs - strange results (Read 146388 times)
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 #135 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 12:52pm
 
El_Pescador

The devil is in the *details*--I have lost track of exactly what you are doing--

In your reply #123 above--you created what appears to be a single FAT32 primary partition.

In your reply #125 above--you create what appears to be two primary partition:

1.  a NTFS partition of > 35 GB

2.  a FAT32 partition of approx. 25 GB

You then manipulate those partitions using PartitionMagic to delete and reconfigure them as Logical partitions in an extended partition--but the step-by-step sequence is missing--and the final size of each partition is not mentioned.

And then, in your reply # 128, you modify your procedure so as to not *delete* the NTFS partition, but simply manipulate it and the FAT32 partition so as to end up with an Extended partition with the NTFS and FAT32 partition inside...but, again the step-by-step details of the sequence of steps is missing--as well as the final size of the partitions.

So, of the three different configurations and steps outlined above--which one (or ones) did you want tested--and what are the missing steps and final sizes of the partitions in your outline?
 

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
 

El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #136 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 6:21pm
 
FOUR STEPS (using 160GB Seagate IDE HDD as example as it mirrors my MASTER SATA NCQ HDD):

(1)  Use DOS-based
GDisk
disk no.
/diskwipe
to zero-fill the target HDD, but no subsequent GDisk operations at all;

(2)  Go straight to Windows XP and tacitly allow Seagate DiscWizard for Windows(R) find the target HDD "hands-off" - do not do any searching, but merely confirm its choice if correct;

(3)  Use DiscWizard to lay out the first NTFS primary active partition as 52GB (by default anything over 35GB transforms to NTFS, so anything over that size is arbitrary - as are the number of NTFS partitions for that matter); then lay out another NTFS partition of 57GB (by default, this second partition becomes the basis of an extended partition); and finally, lay out about 25GB for the last partition which by default will be FAT32 w/16kb cluster so as to leave the remaining freespace unencumbered until subjected to the GROW command during a follow-up pass in SAFE MODE; and

(4)  Then - and only then - do I go into Partition Magic 8.0 where I
CONVERT
the leading NTFS primary active partition to a logical drive to share the single extended partition with the 57GB NTFS logical drive and the now GROWN-UP FAT32 logical drive whose volume has expanded from 25GB to 39GB albeit it does retain 16kb clusters.

I avoid primary active partitions on all internal SLAVE HDDs and external HDDs as well - particularly those devices with SATA or SATA/USB combo capability where the dread message
'NTLDR is Missing - Press any key to restart'
can jump up and bite you if your MASTER HDD has been reassigned from IDE to SATA.

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 #137 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 8:00pm
 
El_Pescador

I have the IBM 40 GB...or an IBM 60 GB that I can test--how would you like those partitioned and formated?

Quote:
... I go into Partition Magic 8.0 where I CONVERT the leading NTFS primary active partition to a logical drive to share the single extended partition with the 57GB NTFS logical drive and the now GROWN-UP FAT32 logical drive whose volume has expanded from 25GB to 39GB albeit it does retain 16kb clusters.


I've never used PartitionMagic's *Convert* function--so I do not know what happens here.

Do you end up with two 57 GB NTFS partitions inside the Extended partition plus the 25 GB FAT32 partition--and the remaining *free space* at the end of the HDD outside the Extended partition?

Do you have to *resize* the Extended partition to use the remaining free space?  You don't explain how you have *GROWN-UP* the FAT32 partition.

Do you resize the FAT32 partition to take up the remaining free space after *growing* the Extended 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: 1364
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #138 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 8:21pm
 
Now, I'm probably going to prove that I'm thick but:

gdisk "diskno" /diskwipe is done to get all space "used", filled with zeros, right?

The resizing and merging of partitions is to maintain 16 kB clusters on a FAT32 partition larger than 32 MB, right?

If the above is correctly understood, why not use a Win98 or WinME start disk to format and use the commands /U (unconditional, said to wipe and zero fill) and /Z:32 (will yield a cluster size of 32 x 512 bytes = 16 kB). If the drive letter is H: it would be "FORMAT H: /U /Z:32".

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 #139 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 10:23pm
 
NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 8:00pm:
START QUOTE
"... or an IBM 60 GB that I can test--how would you like those partitioned and formated?... I've never used PartitionMagic's *Convert* function--so I do not know what happens here... end up with two 57 GB NTFS partitions inside the Extended partition plus the 25 GB FAT32 partition--and the remaining *free space* at the end of the HDD outside the Extended partition?... have to *resize* the Extended partition to use the remaining free space... resize the FAT32 partition to take up the remaining free space after *growing* the Extended partition?" Quote:
STOP QUOTE


BE ADVISED: DiscWizard assigns file system format by the volume of the partition selected, plus the second partition and all subsequent are going to be in an extended partition as a set of logical drives no matter what you do or don't do - forego fighting any of this early on:

(1)  The 60GB IBM IDE HDD would be best, but with only two partitions - initially go for a leading primary active NTFS partition trailed by default with an extended partition containing a single FAT32 logical drive;
(2)  After the so-called "low-level format" with GDisk, use DiscWizard to assign the target HDD as
'Additional Storage'
and when underway proceed to slide the scale LEFT-to-RIGHT until the leading partition changes from GREEN-to-PURPLE (FAT32-to-NTFS) at about 36GB and stick with the NTFS default file cluster size as you mark
SET
; then

(3)  For the trailing partition, keep an eye on the window below the pie-chart graphic for the
shift
in FAT32 default cluster size from
8kb-to-16kb
as you slide the scale LEFT-to-RIGHT and
STOP RIGHT THERE
to mark
SET
and then select the
NEXT>
radio button (you will find the remainder of this phase to be straightforwardly automated);

(4)  Upon exiting from DiscWizard, reboot your PC into SAFE MODE and reenter DiscWizard to select the
Maintenance
radio button to go to
'Maintenance Options'
, select
'Partitioning and Formatting Options'
where you in turn select
'Grow a Partition'
(this feature actually pumps up the logical drive to force the extended partition to occupy the remaining freespace albeit while retaining the 16kb cluster size - you will find the remainder of this phase to be likewise straightforwardly automated as DiscWizard will reboot without intervention on your part);

(5)  After the system reboots, you merely hit the
Finish
radio button, then in turn the
Exit
radio button and on to PM8; and

(6)  Once in Partition Magic 8.0, target the NTFS partition in the lead and perform a
'Convert partition'
from
Primary-to-Logical
- et voila' - you are done.

The trick now is to see if there are any marked performance differences between NTFS and FAT32.  I am reasonably confident that the IBM HDD will be amenable to the Seagate DiscWizard, but I cannot assure you of this.

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 #140 - Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm
 
El_Pescador

I was reading your reply # 134 to Christer.  You talk about installing Seagate's DDO (dynamic disk overlay).  But your instructions above make no mention of doing that!

Also, your reply #134 refers to *DiscWizard Starter Edition*, but in the outline above you refer to *Seagate DiscWizard for Windows*, which appears to be a different program!?

Two questions:

1.  DDO is for systems that can not recognize the full capacity of larger HDD's because of BIOS limitations--why would you be recommending that on a system whose BIOS recognizes the HDD capacity natively?

2.  Does the Seagate Disk Wizard program *automatically* install the DDO on the HDD when you use it to partition the zeroed out HDD by GDISK?

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

Separate question:

In another thread here:  

TYPE FLAGS: A component of USB misbehavior ?


you said you were getting an *Error # 91* in DOS PartitionMagic, which stated that it was detecting *Disk Manager*.

*DDO* is also known as *Disk Manager* and this may be the source of that error message!

Have you attempted to install DDO on all your HDD's?
 

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
 

El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #141 - Aug 23rd, 2005 at 1:47am
 
Christer wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 8:21pm:
"... gdisk "diskno" /diskwipe is done to get all space "used", filled with zeros, right?... resizing and merging of partitions is to maintain 16 kB clusters on a FAT32 partition larger than 32 MB, right?... why not use a Win98 or WinME start disk to format and use the commands /U (unconditional, said to wipe and zero fill) and /Z:32 (will yield a cluster size of 32 x 512 bytes = 16 kB). If the drive letter is H: it would be "FORMAT H: /U /Z:32"..."

Christer -

All of that is most likely correct - and exceedingly elegant, I might add - but at the end of the day will your troublesome HDD so configured have its FAT32 partition perform almost as well as its NTFS partition, for that is the real question.

All I do know is that my Western Digital SLAVE HDDs configured in time-honored fashion experience Ghost 2003 Backups with NTFS partitions at
1/4-to-1/3
the elapsed time achieved with the FAT32 partitions. After being reconfigured as described above, the FAT32 partitions will almost achieve parity with the NTFS partitions -
go figure !!!


Regrettably, I cannot explain why it happens - I can only say that I can make it happen in my modest environment.  However, if you and NightOwl do in fact independently succeed in replicating my findings then this becomes a whole new ball game, doesn't it?

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 #142 - Aug 23rd, 2005 at 2:50am
 
NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... I was reading your reply # 134 to Christer.  You talk about installing Seagate's DDO (dynamic disk overlay).  But your instructions above make no mention of doing that!..."

That has been done by default with DiscWizard all along, but I only recently became aware of it.  In fact, I have spent several hours today with a Seagate utility that is supposed to remove DDO - and although the option is visible, it is "greyed-out" so that I cannot invoke it.  Since the utility is DOS-based, I am unable to make a screenshot to post.

NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... your reply #134 refers to *DiscWizard Starter Edition*, but in the outline above you refer to *Seagate DiscWizard for Windows*, which appears to be a different program!?..."

DiscWizard Starter Edition is the DOS-based version that overlaps DiscWizard for Windows to a great extent, but Seagate recommends the Windows version to make a final wrap - particularly where either the HDD exceeds 137GB or the client is running XP w/SP2 - or both.

NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... DDO is for systems that can not recognize the full capacity of larger HDD's because of BIOS limitations--why would you be recommending that on a system whose BIOS recognizes the HDD capacity natively?

This is not a recommendation one way or the other - it is nothing more than serendiptity that spun off of my resolution of grief with the Iomega External 80GB HDD.  I am simply stating that by so configuring I have placed the FAT32 partition of my internal SLAVE HDDs on a performance par with the NTFS partition.  It is up to you and Christer to ascertain whether or not it can be replicated with the IBM/Hitachi HDDs.

NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... Does the Seagate Disk Wizard program *automatically* install the DDO on the HDD when you use it to partition the zeroed out HDD by GDISK?..."

Absolutely and unequivocally - and I can neither stop it nor can I remove it - and I have tried mightily of late to do both.


NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... an *Error # 91* in DOS PartitionMagic, which stated that it was detecting *Disk Manager*.... *DDO* is also known as *Disk Manager* and this may be the source of that error message!..."

Honestly, I cannot recall either way whether the Iomega was subjected to DiscWizard prior to the attempts with the DOS-based PM8 emergency disks - but damned if doesn't sound likely.

NightOwl wrote on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 11:58pm:
"... Have you attempted to install DDO on all your HDD's?..."

I have never installed DDO on any HDD
with knowledge aforethought
until yesterday afternoon when I was shaking down the process I was outlining for you in Reply #136 on a 160GB Seagate Barracuda IDE HDD mounted in a Metal Gear Box USB 2.0/SATA combo enclosure kit.  All of the MASTER HDDs in my three Dell Dimension desktop PCs were classically configured, for I only began using DiscWizard for Windows during the Iomega epiosode.  Admittedly, I now have SLAVE HDDs and external HDDs with DDO installed -
but I did so unwittingly because I do things heuristically, i.e., I really screw things up, then I go check the manual ... LOL !!!


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 #143 - Aug 23rd, 2005 at 11:35am
 
El_Pescador

I looked at the on-line information here:

DiscWizard Suite is your installation software kit for installing Seagate disc drives.


Clicking on the *Learn More* link just above the *Select Language* radio buttons--according to the *posted* information--only *DiscWizard Starter Edition* mentions the DDO.

It implies that it will only install DDO if the program determines that your BIOS does not support the HDD capacity, and it seems to imply that it will alert you that it is installing DDO(or at least has) :

Quote:
How to use DiscWizard Starter Edition

8.

If a Dynamic Drive Overlay (DDO) is required, DiscWizard Starter Edition will give very important instructions for booting to the computer. You will be given an option and instructions for creating an Ontrack Boot Diskette (requires a floppy with the OS on it). You will then be prompted to remove the diskette from Drive A: and press RESET or CTRL-ALT-DEL to reboot.


Quote:
That has been done by default with DiscWizard all along, but
I only recently became aware of it
.


1.  DiscWizard Starter Edition or DiscWizard for Windows--or both?

2.  I'm curious--if the option to remove DDO is *greyed out*--how have you determined that DDO is actually being installed and is present on your HDD's?

 

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
 
El_Pescador
Übermensch
*****
Offline


Thumbs Up!

Posts: 1605
Bayou Country, USA


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #144 - Aug 23rd, 2005 at 12:50pm
 
NightOwl wrote on Aug 23rd, 2005 at 11:35am:
"... according to the *posted* information--only *DiscWizard Starter Edition* mentions the DDO..."

In retrospect, I now recall that after completing a very recent GDisk procedure using my Dell Dimension L400c - which lacked the DiscWizard for Windows installation at that time - I rebooted with the Seagate bootable installation CD.  I surmise that DiscWizard Starter Edition must be on the "front-end" of the CD, and that must be where I very first encountered the phrase Dynamic Drive Overlay (DDO).

NightOwl wrote on Aug 23rd, 2005 at 11:35am:
"... It implies that it will only install DDO if the program determines that your BIOS does not support the HDD capacity, and it seems to imply that it will alert you that it is installing DDO(or at least has)... DiscWizard Starter Edition or DiscWizard for Windows--or both?..."

I did not catch that implication at all, but I cannot argue against it for it sounds quite sensible.  When booting from the CD, it advises against prepping the HDD outside of Windows but leads you to believe a DDO will be installed if you so choose.  I cannot recall the details in the least, but it seems that a good while back Rad cautioned against drive overlays under certain circumstances.

NightOwl wrote on Aug 23rd, 2005 at 11:35am:
"... if the option to remove DDO is *greyed out*--how have you determined that DDO is actually being installed and is present on your HDD's?..."

The more I follow your assessment, the more I am inclined to believe that the DDO installation is an automated elective procedure - hmm, is that a contradiction within a phrase or not.  Let's just say the DDO installation is triggered by a shortcoming of some kind, and if the host BIOS and the candidate HDD are otherwise fully "up-to-specification" and compatible then such will not occur.  If I knew how to ascertain the presence of a DDO, I would seek them out in every little nook and cranny of my tangled cybernetic environment.

El Pescador


P.S.  Step (2) in Reply #139 has been edited for clarity.
 

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



Posts: 1364
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #145 - Aug 28th, 2005 at 8:43pm
 
I had time to carry out a few tests, creating and checking images of the source (system) partition, C: on a 120 GB 7K250 with the target partition, F: on a 40 GB 60GXP. Both HDDs are PATAs. The 7K250 also has an extended partition with two logicals. I use No Compression when creating the images. I formated the single partition (all 40 GB) on the 60GXP in different ways and found:

WinME start disk, created extended/logical partition, formated using switch "/u" but let it decide the cluster size (cluster size 32 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 400 MB/min

WinME start disk, created extended/logical partition, formated using switch "/u" and "/z:32" (cluster size 16 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 392 MB/min

WinME start disk, created primary partition, formated using switch "/u" but let it decide the cluster size (cluster size 32 kB) => create image = 404 MB/min, integrity check = 399 MB/min

WinME start disk, created primary partition, formated using switch "/u" and "/z:32" (cluster size 16 kB) => create image = 403 MB/min, integrity check = 392 MB/min

From within WinXP Disk Manager, created extended/logical partition, formated NTFS with standard cluster size (4 kB) => create image = 854 MB/min, integrity check = 2101 MB/min

From within WinXP Disk Manager, created primary partition, formated NTFS with standard cluster size (4 kB) => create image = 854 MB/min, integrity check = 2125 MB/min

In no case did extended/logical or primary make a difference.

In no case did 32 kB or 16 kB cluster size make a difference (for cases formated FAT32).

Under all circumstances was NTFS 2.1 times faster creating and 5.3 times faster checking integrity compared to FAT32.

It seems like El_Pescador has discovered something that is quite puzzling. Creating a specific type of partition with a specific (non-standard) cluster size using a specific (quite intricate) method. I used a different method to acchieve similar partitioning but the performance was totally different. I can't predict if I would benefit from the same performance as E_P, if I would adhere to the E_P-procedure on my 60GXP. I don't have access to Partition Magic and have no other incentive to buy it which makes it a no-go for me.

Another peculiarity on FAT32 is that Ghost leaves "slack space" between the spans. My images were five spans with four "slack spaces". Any subsequent image gets written in the "slack spaces" of the previous image which makes span #1 fragmented. This doesn't happen on NTFS. Well ...... Lips Sealed ...... on my system but I don't know about others!

Christer
(who from now on, officially believes in ...... Shocked ...... GREMLINS)
 

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 #146 - Mar 17th, 2006 at 12:58pm
 
Christer wrote on Aug 28th, 2005 at 8:43pm:
"...

Christer

(who from now on, officially believes in ...... Shocked ...... GREMLINS)

The datestamp for the above post has a macabre twist for me, as I was fleeing northward before an approaching Hurricane Katrina at that very moment.  I never had opportunity to revisit this thread until today.

EP
Cry
 

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



Posts: 1364
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #147 - Mar 18th, 2006 at 2:12am
 
You must have been digging deep in the forum to find the old thread. I re-read my last post and don't even remember having done those tests ... Embarrassed ... !

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 #148 - Mar 18th, 2006 at 7:48am
 
Christer wrote on Mar 18th, 2006 at 2:12am:
"... You must have been digging deep in the forum to find the old thread..."

Yes, indeed.  I was refreshing my thoughts relating to the thread below:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=11425...

EP
Cry
 

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