Welcome, Guest. Please Login
 
  HomeHelpSearchLogin FAQ Radified Ghost.Classic Ghost.New Bootable CD Blog  
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
Send Topic Print
Comparing HDDs - strange results (Read 139521 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 #90 - May 18th, 2004 at 10:59am
 
Christer

Quote:
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.


Once again, I could be wrong about who manufactured the IBM labeled Deskstar hard drive back in 2001.  When I was looking for warranty info, I went to this website:



Based on the info about the 'IBM FRU Number', I made the leap of faith that any drive without the IBM FRU number and now supported by Hitachi, must have been actually made by Hitachi, and that's why Hitachi took over the warranties.  

And drives with the IBM FRU number must have been made by IBM (although, I'll bet IBM contracts out to others the actual manufacturing).  And I assumed Hitachi did not want to take on those warranties because they did not make those hard drives.

So, if you have information that says IBM Deskstars were made by IBM and not Hitachi, I really cant say I know otherwise except based on what I said above.
 

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 #91 - May 18th, 2004 at 11:10am
 
Below a copy of an email sent to EPOX-UK:

Quote:
Dear Sir's and Ladies!

My motherboard is EPOX 8KTA3 equipped with an 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird and 512 MB SDRAM PC133.

Primary Master is Hitachi 7K250, HDS722512VLAT80
Primary Slave is IBM 60GXP, IC35040AVER07-0

I use Norton Ghost (under DOS, no 4in1-drivers loaded) for backup and have experienced slow transfer rates:
Image creation to the 7K250 is at ~136 MB/min.
Image creation to the 60GXP is at ~342 MB/min.

A friend has carried out tests and these returned the same rates when on his VIA controller (VT82C686B) but when the drives are on his HighPoint controller the rates are ~1176 MB/min.

Please visit our ongoing discussion at:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=10784...

I hope that the link takes You to post #81 in which the discussion on VIA starts.

I would very much appreciate any comment or solution to the issue with the VIA controller (VT82C686B).

Thanks for Your time,
Christer Engdahl

Will be interesting to read their comments and possible solution.

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 #92 - May 18th, 2004 at 11:16am
 
NightOwl,

Quote:
So, if you have information that says IBM Deskstars were made by IBM and not Hitachi, I really cant say I know otherwise except based on what I said above.

IBM has had manufacturing in several locations around the globe, including Asia and Europe. It is said that the most troublesome Deskstars were manufactured in Hungary, a plant which was subsequently closed.

I never say 100% unless I'm 200% sure I'm right and that has never happened ...... Lips Sealed ...... so, I keep the door open for 60GXP's manufactured by Hitachi.

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 #93 - May 18th, 2004 at 11:19am
 
I'm very impressed by EPOX-UK! I had the first response with a request for more information within minutes, actually while typing the reply to NightOwl!

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 #94 - May 27th, 2004 at 9:32am
 
Yesterday, I received an update from Hitachi:

Quote:
Dear Christer,

I am sorry for the delay, but at the moment have no explanation as to the Ghost timings. I have been following your threads on StorageReview and also Radified, but I still have not found an explanation for your results from Ghost.

Your initial benchmarks do show that the 7K250 outperforms the 60GXP, but I am not sure about the Ghost timings, apart from my intitial response.

I know since then though you have now also extended the test to involve different source partitions.

I will keep investigating to see if the issue has appeared elsewhere and advise accordingly.

On a separate issue, you mention in a thread at Radified about using a firmware 'update tool' that you have downloaded from IBM.

This tool will not work with your drives. You have a generic distribution drive, whereas the tool you are trying is specifically for drives that Hitachi have sold to IBM for use in their systems ie the drives will most likely have a different firmware.

Regards

It's interesting that he/she mentions having found his/her way here and to StorageReview.
I don't remember having mentioned neither Radified nor StorageReview to Hitachi but I did mention Radified to EPOX.
Do they browse the web in general or has Hitachi and EPOX been in contact with eachother on this issue?

He/she comments on the firmware update to the 60GXP and claims that it won't work with my drives. I don't know if he/she refers to the same update, which was explicitly to "cure" the reliability issue with the 60GXP.
The fact that I did the update, has no bearing on the speed issue. I did that update before the 7K250 was installed, after a recommendation on StorageReview in order to possibly prolong the life of the 60GXP.
The "scan and check" utility found the 60GXP and identified the firmware version as in need of an update to "cure" the reliability problem.
The flash utility updated the firmware and a succeeding "scan and check" again found the 60GXP and identified the firmware as OK.
I will send a reply to Hitachi later today but I will not quote it here.

By the way, Hitachi's comment on them building drives for IBM indicate that NightOwl was right but as I understand it, generic drives are sold to computer manufacturers, not to end users like us.

Christer
 

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




Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #95 - May 29th, 2004 at 9:07pm
 
I bet it's a "He".

I've been following this thread for weeks.
 
 
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 #96 - Jun 2nd, 2004 at 3:57am
 
Christer

It's taken me a while to get back to this because, unlike the first replacement drive which came from California, and took only 2 days to arrive, this one came from Malaysia, and took 9 days to arrive.  Hmmmm... our global economy!

But now I have the Hitachi replacement hard drive and have done some more testing.  First off...

Quote:
IBM has had manufacturing in several locations around the globe, including Asia and Europe. It is said that the most troublesome Deskstars were manufactured in Hungary, a plant which was subsequently closed.


Well, maybe that plant was not really closed!  The new replacement hard drive from Hitachi is labeled 'IBM Deskstar made in Hungary for Hitachi Global' with a manufacturing date of 'May-04' and with a sticker that says 'Serviceable Used Part.'

And I say out loud with what appears to be a forced, unnatural smile, 'Greeeat...a serviceable used part IBM Deskstar made in Hungary for Hitachi Global', and the bubble above my head shows what I'm really thinking, 'Oh, s--t, a serviceable used part IBM 'DeathStar' made in Hungary for Hitachi Global.'  Cheesy  Thanks for that information quoted above, Christer.  Now I have more confidence in the IBM Deskstars, having replaced the first two that were made in Thailand by IBM Storage Products, Ltd.

Oh, well...so far its spin is quiet, and I can only just hear the heads clicking when there's heavy access, like when creating a Ghost image...unlike the Seagates that are totally silent!

The refurbished 40 GB hard drive from Hitachi is model # IC35L040AVER07-0 and the part # is W: 07N6654, and no firmware version indicated.  I'm going to call this replacement the 'used IBM' drive.

So here's the results:

In all cases, I'm using image creation speed, and no compression.

Christer--you wanted to know the image creation speed with the 'used IBM' 40 GB hard drive on the VIA controller (I know you preferred the Hitachi 7K250 40 GB model, but I don't have that now as previously mentioned) and sending the image to the Seagate on the HighPoint controller.  Well, I noted that I had put the previous IBM Deskstar (not the 'used IBM'), and the Hitachi Deskstar on the VIA secondary channel as slave, while the Seagate was always on the VIA primary as master, so I put the 'used IBM' on the VIA primary channel as master and sent the image to the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and the creation speed was 1114 MB/min.  I sent the image the other direction leaving the hard drives hooked up to the same controller positions, from the Seagate to the 'used IBM' and got a 404 MB/min creation speed!

Next, I changed the 'used IBM' to the VIA secondary channel as slave as I had things setup on the original tests that I previously reported and imaged from the 'used IBM' to the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and got a creation speed of 991 MB/min.  And reversing the imaging direction from the Seagate to the 'used IBM', I got 132 MB/min.  That creation speed was some better, but very similar to the previous results when I got 115 MB/min when using either the Hitachi 7k250 or the original IBM Deskstar and imaging from the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master to either the Hitachi 7k250 or the original IBM Deskstar on the VIA secondary channel as slave.

I then put the 'used IBM' on the HighPoint secondary controller as slave and left the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and imaging from the Seagate to the 'used IBM' gave a creation speed of 1163 MB/min, and sending the image from the 'used IBM' to the Seagate gave a creation speed of 889 MB/min.

So, again it appears to still be the case--drives on the HighPoint worked well together, but trying to send an image from a drive on the HighPoint to a drive on the VIA controller resulted in a much reduced performance, while sending an image from a hard drive on the VIA controller to the HighPoint was much better performance.  And as previously noted, if both drives were on the VIA controller, the performance was poor.

Both Norton Ghost and the hard drives show the ability to perform together at high speed, but it depends on the their position on the controller and which controller they're on...I still think the results are pointing at the VIA controller as being the problem.





 

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 #97 - Jun 2nd, 2004 at 6:14am
 
NightOwl,
thanks for posting back!

I think that this mammoth thread is a record breaker and we are probably far from the finish line!!

Quote:
Well, maybe that plant was not really closed!  The new replacement hard drive from Hitachi is labeled 'IBM Deskstar made in Hungary for Hitachi Global' with a manufacturing date of 'May-04' and with a sticker that says 'Serviceable Used Part.'

Maybe I'm totally wrong but is it possible that it was originally manufactured by IBM in Hungary and subsequently refurbished elsewhere by Hitachi?

In the latest correspondence, the "guys" at Hitachi confessed to lurking here and since they have the answers, I invite them to join our discussion.

The "guys" at EPOX came off the starting-blocks rather quickly but since then - nothing.
I hope that they too are "on the case" and it's better to get a solution in due course than a quick "evasive action".

The outcome of all this will have an influence on my next purchase decision ...... Undecided ......

Quote:
... so I put the 'used IBM' on the VIA primary channel as master and sent the image to the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and the creation speed was 1114 MB/min.  I sent the image the other direction leaving the hard drives hooked up to the same controller positions, from the Seagate to the 'used IBM' and got a 404 MB/min creation speed!

Next, I changed the 'used IBM' to the VIA secondary channel as slave as I had things setup on the original tests that I previously reported and imaged from the 'used IBM' to the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and got a creation speed of 991 MB/min.  And reversing the imaging direction from the Seagate to the 'used IBM', I got 132 MB/min.

These two tests indicate that it is a write problem and not a read problem. The task is slower when the IBM is the target.

I haven't found any mention of to which controller Your optical drives are connected. I assume that they are out of the picture but an optical as VIA Secondary Master would explain the drop from 404 to 132 with the IMB as the target, if VIA Primary Slave had nothing or another HDD connected.

(As a side note; I have noticed that mixing a HDD and an optical drive doesn't affect the performance of the HDD when under Windows and 4in1-drivers but under DOS, the performance of the HDD drops to that of the optical drive.)

Quote:
I then put the 'used IBM' on the HighPoint secondary controller as slave and left the Seagate on the HighPoint primary as master and imaging from the Seagate to the 'used IBM' gave a creation speed of 1163 MB/min, and sending the image from the 'used IBM' to the Seagate gave a creation speed of 889 MB/min.

This points almost all fingers, including the thumbs, to VIA but this, from Your first tests:

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).

indicates that the IBM/Hitachi incompatibility could possibly be resolved by a "simple" modification of the HDD firmware. I mean, there is no incompatibility with the Seagate firmware.

The "general" differences of the rates in my system compared to the rates in Your system can probably be explained by the "general" performance differences of our respective system.
My processor is an AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz/266MHz and my guess is that Your processor is in the 2.5-3 GHz range.

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 #98 - Jun 10th, 2004 at 3:04am
 
Christer

I was out of town for a few days and have been busy with other things, but to respond to your last post...

'And now for the rest of the story....' 

I did several additional imaging test when I was testing the 'used IBM' and regarding your comment:

Quote:
I mean, there is no incompatibility with the Seagate firmware.


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.

Quote:
I haven't found any mention of to which controller Your optical drives are connected. I assume that they are out of the picture but an optical as VIA Secondary Master would explain the drop from 404 to 132 with the IMB as the target, if VIA Primary Slave had nothing or another HDD connected.


I have a CD-writer on VIA's primary as master, and a DVD-Rom drive on VIA's secondary as master.  I also did tests where I specifically either left them connected or disconnected to see if the image creation speed varied.  On my system, it did not matter if the optical drives were connected or not, and it did not matter if the optical drives were connected and sharing the same channnel or on separate channels from the hard drives.  However, most of the test results were with the optical drives disconnected.

Quote:
my guess is that Your processor is in the 2.5-3 GHz range.


I have an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ @1.746 GHz
 

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 #99 - Jun 10th, 2004 at 5:19am
 
NightOwl,
thanks for those tests and comments!

The information on different configurations is almost getting difficult to keep track of. I'm going to make an Excel spread sheet when I find the time.

Still waiting for the second response from EPOX. If nothing happens within next week (been a month by then), I'll resend my latest e-mail.

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 #100 - Jun 14th, 2004 at 6:38am
 
NightOwl,
in an early post You asked:

Quote:
And I wonder if any folks with an Intel based chipsets have similar issues?


A friend of mine has:
- ASUS P4P800 motherboard with Intel i865PE chipset
- P4 2.8GHz/800MHz
- 2x512 MB PC3200 dual channel
- one Seagate 7200.7 160 GB SATA (ST3160023AS) as boot drive with two partitions, C: and D:
- one Seagate 7200.7 plus PATA (ST3160023A) as backup drive with two partitions, E: and F:

I created an Image of C: to D: (SATA -> SATA), with a transfer rate of 817 MB/min. The integrity check was at 2370 MB/min.

I created an Image of C: to E: (SATA -> PATA), with a transfer rate of 900 MB/min. The integrity check was at 2584 MB/min.

This is more in reference to Your Seagates and not my/our issue wth the Hitachis.

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 #101 - Jun 21st, 2004 at 10:16am
 
Hello all,
it’s time to bump this thread with a bit of recent research results!

I believe that I have mentioned a friend, for whom I was shopping for a new HDD. Well, I finally got around to it and guess what …… Roll Eyes ...... he went by my recommendation to get a Hitachi HDS722512VLAT80, 120 GB - 8 MB cache PATA, identical to mine including the same firmware. I borrowed it for a day or two before helping him to reinstall his system on the new drive.

I formatted it to F: - 12 GB NTFS, G: - 90 GB NTFS, H: - 18 GB FAT32. Mine is identical but with drive letters C/D/E.

From C: - NTFS to H: - FAT32 was the same low rates as before, creating at 136 MB/min and checking at 145 MB/min.
From C: - NTFS to G: - NTFS, creating was at 809 MB/min and checking was at 2480 MB/min!

I put my own backup drive (IBM 60GXP) back in the rack and it has the partitions F: - NTFS and G: - FAT32.
Previous results for C: - NTFS to G: - FAT32 was creating at 343 MB/min and checking at 390 MB/min.
Now, I tested C: - NTFS to F: - NTFS. Creating was at 802 MB/min and checking at 2229 MB/min!

This was a surprise and a test that should have been done a long time ago!

Could it be that Ghost’s new-won ability to create Images directly to NTFS partitions has hampered its ability to create Images to FAT32 partitions on some hardware configurations?

Comparing the differences for creating to the differences for checking, indicates to me that it's more of a read problem than a write problem when FAT32 is involved.

========================

Now, I went to visit another friend (or rather his computer ...... Wink ...... don’t tell him) whom I mentioned in my previous post. To recapture his setup:

- ASUS P4P800 motherboard with Intel i865PE chipset
- P4 2.8GHz/800MHz
- 2x512 MB PC3200 dual channel
- one Seagate 7200.7 160 GB SATA (ST3160023AS) as boot drive with two partitions, C: - NTFS and D: -  NTFS
- one Seagate 7200.7 plus PATA (ST3160023A) as backup drive with two partitions, E: - NTFS and F: - FAT32

From C: - NTFS to E: - NTFS, creating was at 885 MB/min and checking was at 2959 MB/min.
From C: - NTFS to F: - FAT32, creating was at 831 MB/min and checking was at 1611 MB/min.

The difference for creating is ~6%, not ~600% as in the case of the Hitachi on my system.
The difference for checking is ~84% which supports my suspicion that it's a read problem when FAT32 is involved.

========================

Now I took his PATA out from the rack and installed the 7K250. Those partitions now became E/F/G.

From C: - NTFS to F: - NTFS, creating was at 895 MB/min and checking was at 2145 MB/min.
From C: - NTFS to G: - FAT32, creating was at 859 MB/min and checking was at 1674 MB/min.

A difference of ~4% for creating which is an acceptable figure compared to the ~600% difference on my system.
The ~28% difference for checking is lower than for the Seagate but still indicates a read problem.

========================

NOTE – OFF TOPIC

As a side test, from within XP – Windows Explorer, to compare the performance of the Seagate PATA to the performance of the Hitachi PATA:

Seagate - moving the Image (4340 GB) from F: - FAT32 to E: - NTFS took 9min03sec which equals 480 MB/min.

Hitachi – moving the Image (4340 GB) from G: - FAT32 to F: - NTFS took 4min40sec which equals 930 MB/min.

This actually puts the rates during Ghost operations in a perspective.

========================

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 #102 - Jun 21st, 2004 at 11:18am
 
Quote:
... Could it be that Ghost’s new-won ability to create Images directly to NTFS partitions has hampered its ability to create Images to FAT32 partitions on some hardware configurations?

Comparing the differences for creating to the differences for checking, indicates to me that it's more of a read problem than a write problem when FAT32 is involved...

Christer


Hmm - check the thread below and consider if there is a somewhat related phenomenon vis a' vis NTFS versus FAT32:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=10828...

El Pescador
 

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



Posts: 1360
Sweden


Back to top
Re: Comparing HDDs - strange results
Reply #103 - Jun 21st, 2004 at 11:48am
 
El Pescador,
I hardly ever read topics on USB or FireWire since I don't have such devices.

However, it seems like there is a connection between my issue and Your issue and the common denominator is FAT32.

As tested according to my latest post, all FAT32 target partitions were on an extended partition as logicals.
All NTFS source partitions were primary partitions.
That combination wasn’t among Your tests.

I hope that the guys at Symantec are following this thread and the people at Hitachi and EPOX too for that matter. It seems to be both software related and hardware related but I currently lean towards Ghost being the culprit with different effects on different hardware.

In my latest post, I forgot to mention that when installing the new Hitachi in my friends system, a WD800 was relegated to backup drive.

I made the WD800 into one extended partition with one logical NTFS and one logical FAT32. The notes I took were mislaid but from memory it was much slower to the FAT32 partition than to the NTFS partition. The difference was of the same magnitude as for my IBM 60GXP.
The strange (?) thing is that the computer in question (Fujitsu Siemens) has an Intel chipset, either i845/82801BA or i850/82801BA, which sort of complicates things since I, a few weeks ago, thought that we had VIA nailed to the wall.

Christer

Edited: Updated information on the Intel chipset
 

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 #104 - Jun 22nd, 2004 at 4:21pm
 
Christer

Okay--now which of the three NTFS versions were you using....?  (Just kidding...kind of  Grin)

Was up past mid-night running test Ghost images  Cheesy.

BTW, I looked at my notes and I could not determine for sure whether I was imaging to a NTFS partition or to a FAT32 partition on the various previous tests.  I suspect most of the tests were imaged to a FAT32 partition however.

Here's the results--

I re-partitioned the 'used IBM' so it had an extended partition only with a logical drive formated as a FAT32 partition  and a logical drive formated as a NTFS partition.

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

The Seagate 120 GB hard drive was on the HighPoint Controller, primary channel as master and the 'used IBM' was on the VIA Controller, primary channel as master:

Seagate NTFS   >>> 'used IBM' NTFS               994 MB/min *
Seagate NTFS   <<< 'used IBM' NTFS             1071 MB/min

Seagate FAT32  >>> 'used IBM' NTFS              946 MB/min *
Seagate FAT32  <<< 'used IBM' NTFS             1040 MB/min

Seagate FAT32  >>> 'used IBM' FAT32             442 MB/min *
Seagate FAT32  <<< 'used IBM' FAT32             962 MB/min

Seagate NTFS   >>> 'used IBM' FAT32             434 MB/min *
Seagate NTFS   <<< 'used IBM' FAT32             846 MB/min

Imaging to the 'used IBM' on the VIA controller was over twice as fast if the partition was in the NTFS format to receive the image.

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

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

Seagate NTFS   >>> 'used IBM' NTFS              1206 MB/min
Seagate NTFS   <<< 'used IBM' NTFS              1050 MB/min

Seagate FAT32  >>> 'used IBM' NTFS             1216 MB/min
Seagate FAT32  <<< 'used IBM' NTFS             1020 MB/min

Seagate FAT32  >>> 'used IBM' FAT32            1184 MB/min
Seagate FAT32  <<< 'used IBM' FAT32             976 MB/min

Seagate NTFS   >>> 'used IBM' FAT32            1267 MB/min
Seagate NTFS   <<< 'used IBM' FAT32            1017 MB/min

Now, with the VIA controller out of the picture, the imaging to a FAT32 partition vs the NTFS partition difference is pretty much gone.

Also, in general, it looks like the NTFS is some faster.  Whether this is due to Ghost being optimized for NTFS or if it's what Microsoft intended to improve with the introduction of the NTFS format, someone else who knows more than I would have to help out there.

 

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
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
Send Topic Print