Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Send Topic Print
Comparing HDDs - strange results (Read 52914 times)
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #75 - Apr 1st, 2004 at 5:12am
 
In the mean time, I´ve been juggling connectors and checked my smallest Image of 1.026 MB on different hardware setups.

First, a reminder of the hardware setup that I normally use and the rates:

Primary Master - 7K250 - 143 MB/min
Primary Slave - 60GXP - 425 MB/min
Secondary Master - CD-R/RW
Secondary Slave - DVD-ROM

Next, after juggling connectors:

PM - 7K250 - 143 MB/min
PS - DVD-ROM
SM - 60GXP - 135 MB/min
SS - CD-R/RW

The reduced rate for the 60GXP indicates that in DOS environment, it makes a difference if a UDMA device is mixed with a non-UDMA device on the same channel.

PM - 7K250 - 143 MB/min
PS - none
SM - 60GXP - 425 MB/min
SS - none

The restored rate for the 60GXP supports the mixing theory.

The 7K250 alone on Primary, nothing on Secondary - 143 MB/min
The 7K250 alone on Secondary, nothing on Primary - 137 MB/min

There is a slight difference between the channels but I don´t know why. Maybe it´s performance scatter?

Christer

By the way, someone over at the StorageReview forum, told me that his 160 GB PATAs work well, imaging from the one to the other. I have asked him what he conciders to be well.
 

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

Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #76 - Apr 1st, 2004 at 9:39am
 
The second response from Hitachi came today and I quote:

Quote:
Dear Sir,

Thankyou for your reply.

I am not sure exactly what Ghost means by 342MB/s during the creation of
the image, as the drives can ony ever read / write at a speed of 100MB/s

Are you sure it is MB/s and not Mb/s ? ie megabits as opposed to megabytes
?

The reason why you are seeing differences in 'speed' when you are creating
your image is to du with the seeking involved.

When you are copying to a partition on the same drive, there is a lot more
seeking by the actuator as it reads and writes. ie the actuator is
constantly moving between reads and writes.

When you use a partition on a separate drive, the C: can happily read and
read, as the actuator on the second drive is happily writing.

Regards

With a blushing face I posted this reply:

Quote:
Dear Sir!

With reference to the below pasted response, I´d like to thank You for Your assistance!

In my first question, I made a typing (?) error and gave the wrong rates. The rates quoted should be MB/min, not MB/sec and I´m very sorry for that mistake and any confusion caused by it.

I have carried out three different tasks with Ghost in a DOS environment, create images, check the integrity of images and restore images to the original source partition. The rates for the 7K250 are consistently 2.5-3 times slower than the rates for the 60GXP.

If both the source partition and the target partition are on the 7K250 or if the source partition is on the 60GXP and the target partition is on the 7K250 doesn´t matter. The 7K250 is slow.

If both the source partition and the target partition are on the 60GXP or if the source partition is on the 7K250 and the target partition is on the 60GXP doesn´t matter. The 60GXP is 2.5-3 times quicker.

The correct rates for the below tasks are:

Create an image to a target partition on the 7K250, 136 MB/min.
Check an image on the 7K250, 145 MB/min.

Create an image to a target partition on the 60GXP, 342 MB/min.
Check an image on the 60GXP, 390 MB/min.

An image integrity check is a read only operation which means that seek time is not an issue as in a read/write operation which is probably the cause for the different rates during the respective task. It is noteworthy that the difference between create and check is 14 % for the 7K250 compared to 7 % for the 60GXP.

I have made several tests, which all verify the above quoted rates (six different images created to both drives which makes each image identical on both drives).

The 7K250 is a HDS722512VLAT80 – firmware V33OA60A
The 60GXP is an IC35L040AVER07-0 – firmware ER4OA45A

Best regards,
Christer Engdahl

(copy of their response omitted)

They are at least doing something and I really appreciate it. I have probably stirred their curiosity.

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: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #77 - Apr 23rd, 2004 at 5:49am
 
It´s been over three weeks since my latest (last?) correspondence with Hitachi but still no response.

Maybe, they are busy investigating the issue (fat chance, heh) or my investigation into it has come to a halt.

Christer
 

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




Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #78 - Apr 23rd, 2004 at 6:13am
 
Thanks for checking in. I've been watching this thread.
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ian Dunster
Guest




Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #79 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 11:23am
 
I still think there's something very funny with your drive - at least under DOS.

Ian.  8)
 
 
IP Logged
 
Christer
Übermensch
*****
Offline



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #80 - Apr 28th, 2004 at 5:30pm
 
Well, I´m in the process of convincing a friend that he needs a HDD like mine ......  Undecided ...... he is even more computer illiterate than I am so I guess that I will have to assist him installing it ......  Cheesy ...... after a detour via my system for tests.

If that one is performing better under DOS, then my HDD is going back to the seller. If not, I´ll have to accept its performance under DOS as an oblation on the sacrificial altar of GHOST. It is not a daily occurence ...... Lips Sealed ......

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 #81 - May 17th, 2004 at 1:42am
 
Christer

You might find this of interest...

I think the problem may be a compatibility issue between the various hard drives and the hard drive IDE controller on the motherboard's chipset, and how the chipset's controller is implemented by the motherboard's maker, rather than the hard drive itself or the Norton Ghost program.  Here's why I think that....

My setup:  I have an 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.  Each of the controller chips has the standard primary and secondary channel, and each channel can have a master and a slave device.

I have the following hard drives:

a matched pair of Seagate 120 GB, model ST3120026A

one IBM Deskstar 40 GB, model 60GXP (same model that you have--it's actually made by Hitachi and was private labeled as an IBM)

one Hitachi Deskstar 40 GB  (A warranty replacement from Hitachi for an IBM Deskstsar 60GXP that failed last month)

So, I can create a large number of combinations of hard drive/controller match-ups.  I tested using the Image Creation speed rather than the Image Integrity Check speed, and in each case I'm reporting below, I'm using Image Creation without Compression.  So here's what I found...

If I had the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint primary channel as master and I tried to image to either the IBM 40 GB or the Hitachi 40 GB on the VIA secondary channel as slave, the image creation speed was 115 MB/min.

But, leaving the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint primary channel as master, if I switched either the IBM 40 GB or the Hitachi 40 GB to the HighPoint secondary channel as slave, and I imaged from the Seagate to either the IBM 40 GB or the Hatachi 40 GB, I now got an image creation speed of 1176 MB/min.  Quite a dramatic increase!

Now, again leaving the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint privary channel as master, I hooked the second Seagate up to the VIA primary channel as master, when I imaged from the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint controller to the Seagate 120GB on the VIA controller, I got an image creation speed of 1195 MB/min.  And when I imaged from the Seagate on the VIA controller to the Seagate on the HighPoint controller, I got an image creation speed of 1363 MB/min (which was the fastest combination I found).

I also imaged from the Seagate on the VIA primary channel as master to the Hitachi 40 GB on the HighPoint secondary channel as slave and got an image creation rate of 1274 MB/min.

However, if I put one of the Seagates on the VIA primary channel as master and the other Seagate on the VIA secondary as master, I now got an image creation rate of 128 MB/min!

I did a couple Image Integrity Checks along the way, and they all had speeds that were between one third to one half again faster than their corresponding Image Creation speeds.

So, all the hard drives showed the potential to create images at a high speed and Ghost could deliver the high speed with each of the drives, but it depended on which controller the hard drives were matched up with.   All the hard drives worked well if they were on the HighPoint controller, but only the Seagate showed a high creation speed when it was on the VIA controller's primary channel as master and imaging to and from other hard drives on the HighPoint controller, but not other drives on the VIA controller.

I'm betting it's a VIA controller issue under native DOS.  And the problem may not exist under Windows because you're then using the 4in1 VIA drivers.  You used test programs to check the speed of your drives--were those programs under Windows, or do they check things under native DOS?  I don't know the answer to this, but what 'driver' is the VIA IDE controller using under native DOS when you're not using Windows?

It's interesting that it's your IBM Deskstar that is showing the better performance while my IBM Deskstar is showing poorer performance when on the VIA controller--that's why I think it's how the motherboard maker has implemented the chipset on their particular board that's making a difference being as I believe we both have the same VIA controller, but we have different brands of motherboards.

Given all this, it looks like one might do well to 'test drive' several different brands of hard drive to see which one gives the better results before making a 'final' purchase--however, not an easy thing to do.  And I wonder if any folks with an Intel based chipsets have similar issues?  There must be some other folks with integrated Raid chips from HighPoint or Promise, or are using PCI add-on IDE controller cards, either with Raid or just for additional hard drives, either on a VIA chipset board or a Intel chipset board--any other input would be interesting to hear as to performance depending on which controller one uses with which hard drives.
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #82 - May 17th, 2004 at 10:51am
 
Hello NightOwl
thanks for Your reaearch into this!

I am very sad right now ...... Cry ...... almost crying. I spent the best part of half an hour to compile a reply ...... Angry ...... and accidentally clicked on one of those links that takes you back to the main page ...... Shocked ...... and all was lost in cyberspace.

<Insert adequate number of curses and language abuse>


I´ll be back later, nice and calm,
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 #83 - May 17th, 2004 at 11:37am
 
Quote:
... and all was lost in cyberspace...

Christer


The above has happened to me often enough to where I now open up a WordPad file to 'mirror-image' my posts once well underway, continually updating it as I go along - in such a mishap, a significant portion of my text is preserved for reconstruction.

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 #84 - May 17th, 2004 at 12:44pm
 
El Pescador

Yup--have to agree.  The rather long and involved post above would have been lost if I had composed it within the 'Post Reply' area of this forum.  When I tried to post-it, I experienced some sort of Internet slow down, and the post-it command timed out and the whole thing was lost.

But, I had composed it using 'WordPad' and had just 'copied' and 'pasted' to the reply area.  It was no problem re-copying and pasting and re-posting.
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #85 - May 17th, 2004 at 3:24pm
 
Well guys, it's not the first time and I try to remember to either do the typing in Word or back it up there. When using a lot of quotes, I tend to NOT do it the safe way but I guess I'll remember now ...... Undecided ...... for a while.

Now, to my thoughts and comments:

Quote:
I have an Abit KG7-Raid motherboard.  It has two IDE hard drive controllers--the standard VIA VT82C686B southbridge controller chip, ...

I don't remember if I mentioned my system basics but it is EPOX 8KTA3 with VIA KT133A+VT82C686B. I actually tried to update the 4in1 drivers but that was out of pure frustration, since they don't get loaded when not starting Windows. That action was, of course, in vain.

Quote:
If I had the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint primary channel as master and I tried to image to either the IBM 40 GB or the Hitachi 40 GB on the VIA secondary channel as slave, the image creation speed was 115 MB/min.

It seems like Your Hitachi built 60GXP differs from my IBM built. The rates are approximately the same as for my 7K250 so; does Your 60GXP have different firmware or is it possible that it has the "7K250"-electronics? There must (?) be a reason for the "no difference" between Your Hitachi/IBM.

Quote:
But, leaving the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint primary channel as master, if I switched either the IBM 40 GB or the Hitachi 40 GB to the HighPoint secondary channel as slave, and I imaged from the Seagate to either the IBM 40 GB or the Hatachi 40 GB, I now got an image creation speed of 1176 MB/min.  Quite a dramatic increase!

Yes, it definitely points to the VIA chipset. That rate is more than three times higher than on my computer.

Quote:
Now, again leaving the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint privary channel as master, I hooked the second Seagate up to the VIA primary channel as master, when I imaged from the Seagate 120 GB on the HighPoint controller to the Seagate 120GB on the VIA controller, I got an image creation speed of 1195 MB/min.  And when I imaged from the Seagate on the VIA controller to the Seagate on the HighPoint controller, I got an image creation speed of 1363 MB/min (which was the fastest combination I found).

This definitely suggests a hardware conflict, VIA - Hitachi, which is supported by ......

Quote:
I also imaged from the Seagate on the VIA primary channel as master to the Hitachi 40 GB on the HighPoint secondary channel as slave and got an image creation rate of 1274 MB/min.

...... which indicates that HighPoint - Hitachi is fine.

Quote:
However, if I put one of the Seagates on the VIA primary channel as master and the other Seagate on the VIA secondary as master, I now got an image creation rate of 128 MB/min!

This indicates that the problem is basically with the VIA chipset.

The conclusion I drew from my test results was that the problem was when the target partition was on the 7K250. That is concurrent with Your test result in my first quote under which the 7K250 was the target on the VIA controller.

If You find the time, could You do a test with the 7K250 as the target on the HighPoint controller?
If that works better, then I believe that You have nailed VIA to the wall!

Quote:
I did a couple Image Integrity Checks along the way, and they all had speeds that were between one third to one half again faster than their corresponding Image Creation speeds.

My results show smaller differences (6-12%), ~136 MB/min creating and ~145 MB/min checking with the target on the 7K250, ~342 MB/min creating and 390 MB/min checking with the target on the 60GXP.
Even my "good" figures are low compared to Your "good" figures which also points to VIA.

Quote:
So, all the hard drives showed the potential to create images at a high speed and Ghost could deliver the high speed with each of the drives, but it depended on which controller the hard drives were matched up with.

As I mentioned and asked about before, If You find the time, could You do a test with the 7K250 as the target on the HighPoint controller? That's the one test You "missed".

Quote:
You used test programs to check the speed of your drives--were those programs under Windows, or do they check things under native DOS?

It was the plug-in in AIDA32. It only performs tests under Windows.

Quote:
I don't know the answer to this, but what 'driver' is the VIA IDE controller using under native DOS when you're not using Windows?

Neither do I know but a guess would be which ever driver that is loaded by the boot disk which probably is none. That leaves us with what is in BIOS.

Quote:
It's interesting that it's your IBM Deskstar that is showing the better performance while my IBM Deskstar is showing poorer performance when on the VIA controller ...

Now, You're confusing me. I was under the impression that there was no difference between Your 7K250 and Your 60GXP. See my comments on Your test #1.

Quote:
... any other input would be interesting to hear as to performance depending on which controller one uses with which hard drives.

I agree!
If anyone out there is willing to do a couple of tests, the results would be very welcome!!

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 #86 - May 17th, 2004 at 4:28pm
 
Christer

Quote:

"It seems like Your Hitachi built 60GXP differs from my IBM built. The rates are approximately the same as for my 7K250 so; does Your 60GXP have different firmware or is it possible that it has the "7K250"-electronics? There must (?) be a reason for the "no difference" between Your Hitachi/IBM. "

My IBM Deskstar 60GXP was manufactured Jun-2001, Model # IC35L040AVER07-0, and part # is 07N6654.  There is no firmware number indicated.

You can go here and put in your IBM 60GXP hard drive's serial number to see if it's the listed under Hitachi:

http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/hgst/?epi_menuItemID=c0b801be666736fe25ad4...

or here:
http://www.hitachigst.com/hddt/Dlocator.nsf/Search?OpenForm

to see if your hard drive matches mine.

Quote:

"Now, You're confusing me. I was under the impression that there was no difference between Your 7K250 and Your 60GXP. See my comments on Your test #1."

I do not have a 7K250 Hitachi.  I have a 40 GB Hitachi Deskstar that was sent as a current 'equivalent' replacement for the failed IBM Deskstar 60GXP and it has a manufacture date of March, 2004.  And I have an older IBM Deskstar 60GXP.

Both the Hitachi Deskstar and the IBM Deskstar performed the same.  If either was on the VIA controller's secondary as slave, they each got the 115 MB/min image creation speed.  If either was switched to the HighPoint controller's secondary slave position, they got 1176 MB/min image creation speed.

What I was trying to say was that your IBM Deskstar 60GXP on your system using the VIA controller was performing better than my IBM Deskstar 60GXP on my system's VIA controller.

Quote:

"If You find the time, could You do a test with the 7K250 as the target on the HighPoint controller?
If that works better, then I believe that You have nailed VIA to the wall!"

Again, I do not have a 7K250, but I did put the Hitachi Deskstar 40 GB on the HighPoint controller's secondary channel as slave and got the 1176 MB/min image creation speed.



 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #87 - May 17th, 2004 at 8:52pm
 
NightOwl,

Quote:
one IBM Deskstar 40 GB, model 60GXP (same model that you have--it's actually made by Hitachi and was private labeled as an IBM)

My IBM Deskstar 60GXP was manufactured Jun-2001, Model # IC35L040AVER07-0, and part # is 07N6654.  There is no firmware number indicated.

I got this one right but I've got to ask: What do You mean by "private labeled as an IBM"?

Mine was manufactured in march 2001 by IBM-Thailand and has the same Model # and Part # as Yours.
There is no firmware version mentioned but I have updated my 60GXP to the version recommended by IBM.

Quote:
You can go here and put in your IBM 60GXP hard drive's serial number to see if it's the listed under Hitachi:

Yes, I've been there but Hitachi inherited the warranty commitments from IBM which means that IBM HDD's are listed too.

Quote:
one Hitachi Deskstar 40 GB  (A warranty replacement from Hitachi for an IBM Deskstsar 60GXP that failed last month)

I misunderstood "Hitachi Deskstar 40 GB" as a 7K250. That model too is named Deskstar.

Quote:
I do not have a 7K250 Hitachi.  I have a 40 GB Hitachi Deskstar that was sent as a current 'equivalent' replacement for the failed IBM Deskstar 60GXP and it has a manufacture date of March, 2004.

That is news to me. I didn't know that the 60GXP is still manufactured but I take Your word for it.
Other replacements for failing 60GXP's that I've heard about have been either a refurbished IBM 60GXP or a new Hitachi 7K250 of the corresponding capacity.

Quote:
What I was trying to say was that your IBM Deskstar 60GXP on your system using the VIA controller was performing better than my IBM Deskstar 60GXP on my system's VIA controller.

Yes, now that I have sorted out Your hardware ...... Wink ...... do I understand what You mean. The possible difference regarding firmware version doesn't matter. I noted the same transfer rates before as I do after the update.
The rates of this drive fitted my misunderstanding that You had a 7K250. It was actually somewhat slower than my 7K250.

Quote:
... but I did put the Hitachi Deskstar 40 GB on the HighPoint controller's secondary channel as slave and got the 1176 MB/min image creation speed.

Yes but my thought was which rate was acchieved with the Hitachi on VIA as source drive and one of the Seagates as target drive on HighPoint.
That would sort out if it is a write problem only or a read problem as well.
However, since it isn't a 7K250, it isn't an important test from my perspective but it would still be interesting.

On my system, it is both. From the 60GXP to the 7K250 is slow. The other way, is quick(er). From one partition to another on the 7K250 is slow but from one partition to another on the 60GXP is quick(er). Checking an Image on the 7K250 is always slow, on the 60GXP it is quick(er).

The general agent for EPOX in Sweden is located 20 km away from my home. Maybe I should give them a call and possibly get my PC over there to let them have a look.

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 #88 - May 17th, 2004 at 11:21pm
 
Christer

Quote:
I got this one right but I've got to ask: What do You mean by "private labeled as an IBM"?


IBM contracted with Hitachi to make the hard drive and put an IBM lable on it that says IBM.

Quote:
There is no firmware version mentioned but I have updated my 60GXP to the version recommended by IBM.


I did not know there was a firmware upgrade available!  How do you 'flash' a hard drive--never done that one.

Quote:
That is news to me. I didn't know that the 60GXP is still manufactured but I take Your word for it.
Other replacements for failing 60GXP's that I've heard about have been either a refurbished IBM 60GXP or a new Hitachi 7K250 of the corresponding capacity


I think I'm wrong here!  I thought your 7K250 model was specific to your 120 GB drive--but, I now see that it applies to several different capacity hard drives after looking further at the Hitachi site.  The reason I got this wrong is that I no longer have the hard drive on my machine.  My daughter's hard drive failed two weeks ago and I gave her that one to take back to college, so I could not look at the label.  My replacement 40 GB Hitachi Deskstar must be a Hitachi 7k250.  But regardless of the name, the performance results are as previously posted.

Quote:
Yes, I've been there but Hitachi inherited the warranty commitments from IBM which means that IBM HDD's are listed too.


Yeh-Hitachi 'inherited' the IBM warranties because they're the ones who actually made them!

Quote:
Yes but my thought was which rate was acchieved with the Hitachi on VIA as source drive and one of the Seagates as target drive on HighPoint.


You're right, I did not do that test.  I realized afterwords that that would have been a good confirming test.  But I can not use the Hitachi hard drive for the moment because my daughter has it.  And actually, I cant try the IBM right now either, because I have returned it to Hitachi for warranty replacement as well (its platter spin sound was becoming louder than the case fans)!!!!

When I get the replacement hard drive (probably in about a week), I will run that test and report it back here.

Quote:
The general agent for EPOX in Sweden is located 20 km away from my home. Maybe I should give them a call and possibly get my PC over there to let them have a look.


If you have access to other brands of hard drives that you can borrow from friends, or can install an add-on PCI IDE controller card, you could see if you can get better imaging speeds under those conditions.
 

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



Posts: 1283
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #89 - May 18th, 2004 at 9:17am
 
NightOwl,

Quote:
How do you 'flash' a hard drive--never done that one.

First, You have to run a utility which scans for IBM drives and then check the firmware version. It will notify if a new version is available and which it is. It runs from a boot floppy and is a DOS operation.

http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=0&uid=psg1MIGR-44195&loc=sv

If needed, a flash utility with the new version can be downloaded. It creates a boot floppy and is a DOS operation. When I did it, I physically disconnected all other devices ...... Undecided ...... one never knows what can go wrong ...... 8) ...... but nothing did.

http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=psg1MIGR-43972
and
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=psg1MIGR-44330

Sorry about the "swedish wrapping" but what You need is in english.

Quote:
My replacement 40 GB Hitachi Deskstar must be a Hitachi 7k250.  But regardless of the name, the performance results are as previously posted.

My logic wasn't all off then. Your rates correspond to my rates for the 7K250. The question is, why the rates of Your 60GXP differs from the rates of my 60GXP?

I can't help thinking about the fact that Your IBM Deskstar was manufactured by Hitachi and has the same performance as the Hitachi Deskstar. The model # and part # speak against this but it seems like Your Hitachi manufactured IBM Deskstar has the 7K250 electronics and firmware.

Quote:
Yeh-Hitachi 'inherited' the IBM warranties because they're the ones who actually made them!

I don't think so. Most 60GXP's were IBM manufactured, I didn't even know that Hitachi was involved before the purchase. When a company buys another, it buys all assets and obligations, including warranties.

Quote:
When I get the replacement hard drive (probably in about a week), I will run that test and report it back here.

I'm looking forward to that!

Quote:
If you have access to other brands of hard drives that you can borrow from friends, or can install an add-on PCI IDE controller card, you could see if you can get better imaging speeds under those conditions.

I have thought about that and came to the conclusion to not do any tests on harddives belonging to friends. None of these drives are empty. Most of them are in single harddrive systems.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm going to buy a second harddrive for a friend. I had planned to get an identical 7K250 to mine and do tests on that one before installing it in my friends system. That would be safe but now, I believe that I know the outcome. The test would be to get better rates from the second harddrive and identify my 7K250 as defective but Your rates indicate that the rates are "normal" on a VIA chipset.

Christer
 

Old chinese proverb:
If I hear - I forget, If I see - I remember, If I do - I understand
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Send Topic Print