CompuServe Thread

#Huh? 1200 diskspeed, NOT

17 messages in this thread
#145694From: Paul IdolMay 14, 1994 8:11 PM
I just ran Diskspeed3 on my A1200's stock 85meg hard drive, and apparently it gives – WITH POWERCACHE – the whopping read of 250k/sec or so, and the even more awe-inspiring write rate of about 50k/sec. Am I on drugs, or are these numbers really low? Paul
#145720From: Chris LesterMay 14, 1994 10:10 PM
Sound kind of low to me…. I was getting (according to the new SysInfo) about 485kps before I installed my fast RAM. Now I'm getting 1.1mps. Which sounds a wee bit fishy to me… especially since I don't really see THAT much of a transfer rate difference! (This is on a self-installed WestDigi WDAL2107, 170megger) I also slapped on 100 buffers (via AddBuff… hey I'm cheap O.K?) to the drive, and it hasn't affected diddly either. However, if I had to make a list of things that I don't know about the Amiga, it would be long… and hard drives would be at the very top! Chris – Fast and Low on my '020! Clap On! <clap clap> Clap Off! <Clap Cla{{*&NO CARRIER
#145759From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 2:15 AM
Huh. I don't know what's up, that's for sure. I'm going to defrag the disk and try again – and maybe things will change once I get the registered version of PowerCache, if I do register it, since registering should make no difference at all. I mean I even timed things like program loads. FiW takes a little over 7 seconds to completely load with or without PowerCache. Paul
#145844From: Chris LesterMay 15, 1994 12:33 PM
Is there anything within PC that might have affected your MAXTRANSFER settings? Although unlikely, it may be the culprit. Chris – Fast and Low on my '020! Clap On! <clap clap> Clap Off! <Clap Cla{{*&NO CARRIER
#145874From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 3:38 PM
Affected MAXTRANSFER? I don't think so.. >Interface Address LUN Status Drive Type >SCSI 0 0 Not Changed Maxtor 2585 AT AC18 The above line is what HDToolbox said about my drive. I don't know what the Drive Type numbers mean, but I guess I don't have a Quantum. <g> Unless part of the SCSI-fooling involves telling the computer it has a different type of drive.. Now I am indeed confused. I ran SysInfo, which gave me pretty much the same info as HDToolbox. Then I ran SysInfo's speed test and it told me the drive was reading just under 1meg/sec. Then I started PowerCache and ran SysInfo's drive speed test again and the rating actually DROPPED slightly! What on earth is going on here? Btw, where can I find the MAXTRANSFER setting? I know I've seen it before, but I couldn't find it this time. Paul
#145928From: Chris LesterMay 15, 1994 9:15 PM
Go in to the "PARTITION DRIVE", hit the "ADVANCED OPTIONS" box. A whole new set of thingamabobs will pop up. Hit the change button, and it will take you to a screen with the MAXTRANSFER setting. Mine is 0x1fe00, but I had to slow it down a bit for the WD drive. It couldn't handle the A1200's blazing fast IDE transfers… (IDE, Blazing… is that an oxymoron? <g>) The default should be 0xffffff. I would venture to say with a pre-installed drive, that is what your should read. I would say you probably have a Maxtor then. Mine detected the Western Digital… although it also thinks it's a SCSI, as does SysInfo. Another post asked about CHIP vs FAST RAM with PC. Do you have any fast RAM connected? Chris – Fast and Low on my '020! Clap On! <clap clap> Clap Off! <Clap Cla{{*&NO CARRIER
#146062From: Paul IdolMay 16, 1994 3:00 PM
Right you are – 0xffffff. And I've got four megs of FAST RAM, so that shouldn't be a problem. (I'll have 16 tomorrow !!! so I can actually use PowerCache and see if it makes much of a difference.) Is the 1200's IDE interface supposed to be a good one? I always thought it was average at best. Paul
#146095From: Dale LarsonMay 16, 1994 4:46 PM
Average at best. — Dale L. Larson, Intangible Assets Manufacturing
#145781From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 3:10 AM
Well, now I'm confused. I just did the whole thing over again and this is what I got -this- time: ————————————————————————- 9.RAM:> type DiskSpeed.ResultsCache DiskSpeed 3.0 – Copyright (c) 1989,90 by MKSoft Development Device: work: Test Intensity: High Performance Stress: CPU Contention & DMA Contention 54 Files/s Create 202 Files/s Open/Close 1422 Files/s Scan 286 Files/s Delete 734 Seek/Read Buffer Size 512 4096 32768 262144 ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— Bytes/s Create 320519 1675104 3303820 3962146 Bytes/s Write 357199 1997659 4277855 5052902 Bytes/s Read 366715 2049125 4194304 5413824 9.RAM:> type DiskSpeed.ResultsnoCache DiskSpeed 3.0 – Copyright (c) 1989,90 by MKSoft Development Device: work: Test Intensity: High Performance Stress: CPU Contention & DMA Contention 5 Files/s Create 30 Files/s Open/Close 739 Files/s Scan 131 Files/s Delete 707 Seek/Read Buffer Size 512 4096 32768 262144 ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— Bytes/s Create 27585 94636 126829 135830 Bytes/s Write 29143 112663 163021 177889 Bytes/s Read 164987 311801 303231 314572 ————————————————————————- So color me confused. The PowerCache-less results this time were higher than the cached AND cache-less results last time. What changed? Nothing. I left the machine on, didn't quit any applications, and went out to see a movie. When I came back I got some mail here and then ran the test while I took a shower. I am totally baffled. In addition, I don't know how to translate the results to real-world performance. I just loaded Final Writer and it STILL takes about 7 beats to load. So no change there. And while I don't know that all reads and writes are 512bytes, I doubt most of them are 262144bytes long either. So how do things work in mixed situations? ACK! Paul
#145792From: Dale LarsonMay 15, 1994 3:58 AM
Do you have enough Fast RAM? Cache in Chip RAM would do nasty things to performance. — Dale L. Larson, Intangible Assets Manufacturing
#145868From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 3:37 PM
Nope, it's set to FAST only. Paul
#146044From: Mario van GinnekenMay 16, 1994 12:57 PM
Paul, I have a stock-fresh A1200 with 250 Megs. I didn't use any kind of cache. My DiskSpeed 3.1 results are: Medium test intensity Buffer Size 512 4096 32760 262144 bytes/s create 133020 433659 525314 672770 bytes/s write 147887 496642 632356 733340 bytes/s read 149158 617093 618990 775078 Create : 25 open/close: 35 seek/read Scan : 263 392 Delete : 144 Performance stress: (both not pressed) MaRiO. -= MoToRoLa RuLeZ, InTeL FooLZ! =- /// 68o2o aGa OnBoarD …///\\\///
#146072From: Paul IdolMay 16, 1994 3:01 PM
Hmm… Faster than mine w/o cache, but I guess the drives and interface just aren't that fast. Thanks for the info. Paul
#145742From: Ronald B. RomineMay 15, 1994 12:23 AM
PI >>it gives – WITH POWERCACHE – the whopping read of 250k/sec or so, and the even more awe-inspiring write rate of about 50k/sec.<< Is this a Seagate drive? My ST9145a, is around 200K/sec. I've heard that Seagate did something funny with their drives, that makes them slow. Ron. – ap'ing with AP. (Eagles may fly, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.)
#145762From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 2:15 AM
Nope, it's a Quantum drive, or so I was led to believe. Maybe I ought to pop the top and see – the warranty's already dead. Paul
#145843From: Richard DanielMay 15, 1994 12:25 PM
PMFJI, Many programs tell you the make and model number of your hard drive. SysInfo is an example. —–Richard Daniel
#145873From: Paul IdolMay 15, 1994 3:37 PM
Good point. I wasn't thinking. ["It was late at night" he whines] Paul