View Full Version : 2x74GB 16mb Raptors Raid0 - Why not so fast?
Write-back cache enabled. 128k stripe. 60gb OS partition.
System:
Gigabyte X48T
E8500 E0 @ 4ghz
2x1GB DDR3-1600
Running XP Pro SP3 32-bit
rest should be irrelevant
For years I can't figure out why my systems never boot up insanely fast. I have built SINGLE 7200RPM SATA machines that boot up faster. WHY!!!?
Could it be Kasperksy? That's pretty much the only difference in software (for the most part).
My 36GB 8mb single raptor on my secondary PC (an AM2 @ 2.8-3.0ghz) boots up as fast as lightning when compared to my main rig running 2x74 16m raptors in raid0.
Any ideas? The HDtach times seemed fine...
gangaskan
03-31-09, 02:13 PM
same model raptors?
same model raptors?
I'm almost certain... even if they weren't, wouldn't they both just run as fast as the slower model (which is still fast)??
gangaskan
03-31-09, 02:56 PM
I'm almost certain... even if they weren't, wouldn't they both just run as fast as the slower model (which is still fast)??
i would imagine, yes :)
is 128k the optimal for raid0? i thought 64k was, but i could be mistaken
i would imagine, yes :)
is 128k the optimal for raid0? i thought 64k was, but i could be mistaken
128K is what the ICH*R chipsets always seem to default to for Raid0 for me, so I just leave it at that.
You really think that the stripe size could affect boot times THAT much?
gangaskan
03-31-09, 03:15 PM
128K is what the ICH*R chipsets always seem to default to for Raid0 for me, so I just leave it at that.
You really think that the stripe size could affect boot times THAT much?
i'm not really sure to be honest :beer:
you could try it, i'll try to dig a little and see if the block size matters
i'm not really sure to be honest :beer:
you could try it, i'll try to dig a little and see if the block size matters
Damn... that's gonna require reinstalling everything...
If Acronis could read my C: partition, I guess I could create an image, redo the stripe just on that raid partition, and then restore image?
If that won't work, I really would hate to have to reinstall everything!!
JLK03F150
03-31-09, 03:27 PM
The "Matrix" sticky thread in the storage section recommends 128k strip with matrix raid.
I googled Kasperksy + "boot time" & found some hits indicating that might be a good place to start checking. Maybe reinstall Kasperksy & see if the boot time decreases. It's easier than a full install.
gangaskan
03-31-09, 03:28 PM
i would imagine so, acronis should work, it copies the data and the boot sectors it could care less about how the drive is configured.
I have the same setup but with 8meg cache and they are plenty fast, I used a 64kb cluster size which is more optimal for smaller files. If you are doing large transfers the larger cluster size would be more appropriate.
theELVISCERATOR
03-31-09, 03:57 PM
what times are we talking here.....I find a fresh windows install boots very fast and slows down further with ever piece of sw you install...
I have the same setup but with 8meg cache and they are plenty fast, I used a 64kb cluster size which is more optimal for smaller files. If you are doing large transfers the larger cluster size would be more appropriate.
That's why I figured 128kb would be perfect b/c I do a little bit of both worlds.
what times are we talking here.....I find a fresh windows install boots very fast and slows down further with ever piece of sw you install...
Installation was fast... but when you have a lot of different installations and then configuring each game, each app, etc... it takes a long time for me to re-install everything. That's kinda why I like Acronis. :)
freeagent
03-31-09, 04:36 PM
when you say why does it take so long to boot, do you mean why does it take so long to get to the windows load up screen? or once you get to the loadup screen it takes a long time?
i know on post it takes a lil bit extra to initialize the raid controller, as for takeing windows awhile to load, it could be the av you are useing. i know with mine i had a hard bluescreen, so now once windows loads to the desktop, it takes about 30s for windows to actually start doing anything. time for me to reinstall again..
btw! your raptor x arrived today, but i wasnt here to accept, so now i have to wait till tommorow to pick it up :(
when you say why does it take so long to boot, do you mean why does it take so long to get to the windows load up screen? or once you get to the loadup screen it takes a long time?
i know on post it takes a lil bit extra to initialize the raid controller, as for takeing windows awhile to load, it could be the av you are useing. i know with mine i had a hard bluescreen, so now once windows loads to the desktop, it takes about 30s for windows to actually start doing anything. time for me to reinstall again..
btw! your raptor x arrived today, but i wasnt here to accept, so now i have to wait till tommorow to pick it up :(
I meant when I see the windows loading... that's when it takes long. As for the raid controller, I wish there was a way around that b/c like I said my single 36gb 8mb raptor flies!!!!
I guess I'll just have to ASSUME it's stupid Kaspersky... I hate the damn program, but it has kept me safe...
shadowdr
03-31-09, 11:13 PM
I had some severe boot time issues, it sorta just kept getting slower. Finnaly I backed up my stuff and reinstalled and guess what, it was still as slow as before. It made no sense at all, so I did some browsing and found some articles about how XP does not use a large enough offset when formatting (or may not) and folks using the new SSD's needed to manually set it for performance.
Well I ghosted the new install and booted into Vista and reformatted using the drop down offset, re Ghosted my XP partition, reinstalled my saved original boot record and all seems well. It still hangs about ten seconds loading Mcaffe but overall it is at least two times faster then before. I was afraid that my Raptors were going bad but now they are as quick as ever. I don't know why XP does not do this right but an XP array can suffer from it's own format.
There is a thread here that somewhat explains how to do the same using XP and it might be worth a try if you are going to Ghost the partition anyway.
I had some severe boot time issues, it sorta just kept getting slower. Finnaly I backed up my stuff and reinstalled and guess what, it was still as slow as before. It made no sense at all, so I did some browsing and found some articles about how XP does not use a large enough offset when formatting (or may not) and folks using the new SSD's needed to manually set it for performance.
Well I ghosted the new install and booted into Vista and reformatted using the drop down offset, re Ghosted my XP partition, reinstalled my saved original boot record and all seems well. It still hangs about ten seconds loading Mcaffe but overall it is at least two times faster then before. I was afraid that my Raptors were going bad but now they are as quick as ever. I don't know why XP does not do this right but an XP array can suffer from it's own format.
There is a thread here that somewhat explains how to do the same using XP and it might be worth a try if you are going to Ghost the partition anyway.
Where's the thread you speak of and what is an "offset" in formatting? I've never heard of that. I usually pop in my Windows disk and do a QUICK format that way.
Should I use some other 3rd party software off of a bootable disk and then just image back with Acronis?
hank123
04-01-09, 01:12 AM
Godman I have this same issue. The only time I have seen XP load SUPER fast on a raid is with a nvidia chip set. It was a like 1 1/2 bars and it was fully loaded. My 3 36G raptors in raid 0 take for ever to load XP.
I would like to see the offset too.
shadowdr
04-01-09, 05:59 AM
Here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929491) is an article by MS describing how to align the partitions when formatting. I can't find the post made here for alignment but here (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48309)is a guide for SSD's on another forum. It seems that MS has been aware for some time of this and guides for alignment on SQL servers as well as other raid servers are easily found in a search for drive alignment.
Godman I have this same issue. The only time I have seen XP load SUPER fast on a raid is with a nvidia chip set. It was a like 1 1/2 bars and it was fully loaded. My 3 36G raptors in raid 0 take for ever to load XP.
I would like to see the offset too.
I did have an nVidia chipset with my raptors yrs ago... I definitely can say it was NOT as slow as my raptors are now. My raptors were the 8mb 1st models then too!!!
I can say that games don't load slowly, but starting windows is like a 2mb cache IDE drive to be honest... that's what it feels like.
Here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929491) is an article by MS describing how to align the partitions when formatting. I can't find the post made here for alignment but here (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48309)is a guide for SSD's on another forum. It seems that MS has been aware for some time of this and guides for alignment on SQL servers as well as other raid servers are easily found in a search for drive alignment.
Looking into this. Thx for the link.
KillrBuckeye
04-01-09, 01:00 PM
Having built many rigs for friends and family using many different hardware configurations over the years, I have noticed that the Windows loading time has little to do with the speed of the hard drive. I set up all these computers with the same OS and AV, yet load times varied quite a bit. I'm convinced it comes down to the specific motherboard drivers and add-in card drivers.
Case-in-point: My father-in-law's computer was built with an ASRock-939 Dual SATAII board and has an ancient 80 GB 7200rpm hard drive. This computer loads Windows XP Pro faster than any computer I have EVER worked with.
Meanwhile, my 939 rig based on an Asus A8N-SLI Premium had a 74 GB Raptor and seemed to take an eternity to load Windows despite having pretty much the same startup apps. The video cards in the two computers were identical. I'm almost positive that the reason my 939 rig took so long to load was because of the Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 drivers. The reason I say this is that when doing a fresh install on this machine, Windows loaded extremely quickly before I installed the Creative drivers. After the drivers were installed, load times increased significantly. So while this is just one example, I believe the principle applies to different motherboard drivers as well. Some just take longer to load.
Evilsizer
04-01-09, 01:09 PM
were you drunk yesterday? lol,jking, tring to figure out why this is in memory section and not storage. :P
were you drunk yesterday? lol,jking, tring to figure out why this is in memory section and not storage. :P
Dude, I totally don't know. No, I wasn't drunk. :) :beer:
I'll move it... I thought I had put it in storage... no joke.
Having built many rigs for friends and family using many different hardware configurations over the years, I have noticed that the Windows loading time has little to do with the speed of the hard drive. I set up all these computers with the same OS and AV, yet load times varied quite a bit. I'm convinced it comes down to the specific motherboard drivers and add-in card drivers.
Case-in-point: My father-in-law's computer was built with an ASRock-939 Dual SATAII board and has an ancient 80 GB 7200rpm hard drive. This computer loads Windows XP Pro faster than any computer I have EVER worked with.
Meanwhile, my 939 rig based on an Asus A8N-SLI Premium had a 74 GB Raptor and seemed to take an eternity to load Windows despite having pretty much the same startup apps. The video cards in the two computers were identical. I'm almost positive that the reason my 939 rig took so long to load was because of the Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 drivers. The reason I say this is that when doing a fresh install on this machine, Windows loaded extremely quickly before I installed the Creative drivers. After the drivers were installed, load times increased significantly. So while this is just one example, I believe the principle applies to different motherboard drivers as well. Some just take longer to load.
You're onto something here. I have X-Fi drivers on here... and I have had MAJOR problems with the sound card in the past... reboots, instability, SLOWNESS...
Mr.Guvernment
04-01-09, 02:44 PM
raid 0 can add to seek times since it is polling 2 drives now, raid 0 i found when i had it wasnt super fast for OS booting times at all, it was normal, and actually longer due to having initilize the raid controller first.
ghost your current install and do a fresh install, see if speed improves and then slowly add drivers and see if it gets slow..
Evilsizer
04-01-09, 02:46 PM
yea after thinking about it,this creative app for X-fi with my gene board... i installed that to use with the onboard audio and my boot times on my ssd to get into windows takes a bit longer now...
raid 0 can add to seek times since it is polling 2 drives now, raid 0 i found when i had it wasnt super fast for OS booting times at all, it was normal, and actually longer due to having initilize the raid controller first.
ghost your current install and do a fresh install, see if speed improves and then slowly add drivers and see if it gets slow..
That's a project for another day. I love having everything on my machine that I need right now... I just hate going through formats!!
Mr.Guvernment
04-02-09, 12:15 AM
i know that feeling, i can never eem to get it all at once either, after i format i go to do something and am like DAMMIT! didnt install that yet argh!
BigDan3131
04-02-09, 03:54 PM
I know that no question is stupid but...how long has this been running like this? Have you loaded and unloaded a bunch of programs? Does Kasperksy have a registry cleaner in it? I recent gave Wise Registry Cleaner Pro [free version] a try and found my load times much faster. I then downloaded the Wise Disc Cleaner, ran both on my old PIII system which has XP SP3 on it and it perked it right up to like new specs. On the reg cleaner in options is deep clean option that really makes it clean. There are check boxes on both that I don't even touch.
Joeteck
04-02-09, 03:59 PM
The "Matrix" sticky thread in the storage section recommends 128k strip with matrix raid.
I googled Kasperksy + "boot time" & found some hits indicating that might be a good place to start checking. Maybe reinstall Kasperksy & see if the boot time decreases. It's easier than a full install.
Interesting. I tried both 128K and 64K, and 64K gave me better results...
two 150gig Raptors in RAID 0 with a 30gig slice.
I also did two 80 gig drives with a 30 gig Slice.
The 75MB/s is a raptor single drive.
ICH7R, with version 8.8 driver and console
E6400, 2gig of RAM, XP SP3
I disabled Kaspersky from startup (through the app itself) and my load time decreased by 2 seconds. I uninstalled the Creative audio CP and console launcher and there was maybe a 0.5 second difference.
I guess I'd have to REALLY uninstall and clean the registry... this is such crap!!
P.S. I have a retail copy of Registry Mechanic v5.1. I'll give that a try.
Load times
Timing is done from the start of the BLACK screen just before the Windows Loadup screen pops up, and ends when the taskbar on both monitors is loaded. Username is automatically logged in w/out a password.
No changes - 58 seconds
Removed Kaspersky from startup within the Kaspersky app - ~56.5 seconds
Uninstalled Creative X-Fi audio control panel and console launcher (no where did I see a driver uninstall option!! audio still worked even when I uninstalled these) - ~56.0 seconds
Put Kaspersky back to startup and re-installed the X-Fi stuff above. Installed Registry Mechanic, ran a cleanup of registry, and rebooted - ~55.0 seconds
Boot to safe mode - ~28.0 seconds
Ran registry mechanic again - ~54.0 seconds
*Edit* Installed and ran registry mechanic. I gained one second.
Btw, as for defragging, I've even tried Paragon Total Defrag 2009 SE.
You know something! I'm going to time safemode and see how that is. Right now I'm trying windows defragmenter to see how much of a difference it makes.
silentdebuggers
04-03-09, 01:35 PM
Raptors also showing slow random access in HDtach?
Check out my SAFE MODE load time - 28 seconds!! That's half of normal windows mode.
I know safe mode would naturally be faster, but 26-28 seconds faster???
HD Tach (ran it just now):
freeagent
04-03-09, 02:18 PM
and this is on ichr7? its looking better! is your pc fully configured? ie do you have a schwack of apps and such that are installed? maybe your startup apps are putting a stranglehold on the works? logitech is bad for startup apps :)
That shows you something, if boot to safe mode is 28 seconds it's not the drives that are slowing you down it is definitely start up processes of windows.
and this is on ichr7? its looking better! is your pc fully configured? ie do you have a schwack of apps and such that are installed? maybe your startup apps are putting a stranglehold on the works? logitech is bad for startup apps :)
ICH9R. Look at the OP I'm on a Gigabyte X48 DDR3 board.
That shows you something, if boot to safe mode is 28 seconds it's not the drives that are slowing you down it is definitely start up processes of windows.
I guess I'll have to seriously uninstall Kaspersky and X-Fi somehow... but I don't see what the point of that is... I'm gonna need those apps again anyway!!
freeagent
04-03-09, 03:16 PM
sorry :)
yeah i saw you had the x48, i just recalled you saying something about ichr7 and raptors before, maybe in a different pc, sorry its an off day for me :)
Okay, so I am @ my parents' for dinner tonight and using my secondary PC, which is a 36GB 8mb raptor, and a BE-2400 AM2 Brisbane running ~2.9ghz.
WinXP Pro SP3 loaded in about 23-25 seconds.
Un-freakin'-believable. This crap makes me want to just get rid of my 2x74 raid0 setup and just go with a single raptor.
Windows load time is very important to me b/c I don't leave my main rig on 24/7... only my htpc and my file-svr (home svr) runs 24/7.
KillrBuckeye
04-03-09, 08:52 PM
Windows load time is very important to me b/c I don't leave my main rig on 24/7... only my htpc and my file-svr (home svr) runs 24/7.I suggest S3 standby. Everything powers off but the memory, so the system resume time is very short (~5 seconds, but network connection sometimes takes ~20 seconds to come back). I use S3 standby for my main rig and my wife's computer, and it has worked great.
I suggest S3 standby. Everything powers off but the memory, so the system resume time is very short (~5 seconds, but network connection sometimes takes ~20 seconds to come back). I use S3 standby for my main rig and my wife's computer, and it has worked great.
What's S3 standby... is that the same thing as the regular standby?
I thought that my water pump and 12v fans would still run if I standby...
KillrBuckeye
04-03-09, 10:54 PM
What's S3 standby... is that the same thing as the regular standby?
I thought that my water pump and 12v fans would still run if I standby...S3 standby mode turns off all components except for the memory. You're probably thinking of S1 standby, which puts components in low power modes and uses only slightly less power than when the computer is on. Just make sure standby mode is set to S3 in your BIOS and shutdown Windows XP using "Turn Off Computer" => "Standby". Once I discovered it, I couldn't believe I hadn't been using it all these years. I could have saved hundreds of dollars worth of electricity while still enjoying a computer that powered on almost instantly.
S3 standby mode turns off all components except for the memory. You're probably thinking of S1 standby, which puts components in low power modes and uses only slightly less power than when the computer is on. Just make sure standby mode is set to S3 in your BIOS and shutdown Windows XP using "Turn Off Computer" => "Standby". Once I discovered it, I couldn't believe I hadn't been using it all these years. I could have saved hundreds of dollars worth of electricity while still enjoying a computer that powered on almost instantly.
I'll tell ya... I loved using standby on my laptop. I used it 95% of the time and rebooted every 1-2 weeks.
Now that I use my main rig all the time, I shutdown and turn on a lot.
What's the point of S1 standby if S3 is better? Is S1 just a notch faster to boot?
Thx for the info.
KillrBuckeye
04-03-09, 11:15 PM
Well, I'm not entirely sure about why anyone would use S1. My guess is that it was something that was implemented before S3 came along.
If you run into any trouble getting S3 to behave properly, try some of the things mentioned in this article, which is the first result listed when I Googled "S3 standby":
http://www.exoid.com/?page_id=47
Well, I'm not entirely sure about why anyone would use S1. My guess is that it was something that was implemented before S3 came along.
If you run into any trouble getting S3 to behave properly, try some of the things mentioned in this article, which is the first result listed when I Googled "S3 standby":
http://www.exoid.com/?page_id=47
Okay, I'm using S3 and it works great, but I still want to fix this problem.
Does anyone know the best way for me to format my drives so that this doesn't happen again?
My 36gb 8mb single raptor in another system beats my 2x74gb 16m raid0 by about 5 seconds even to load safemode.... that must mean the raid is not working to its true ability if a single 36mb with less cache can beat it.
Remember, my 2x74 with 16megs of cache does ~28s for safemode, and my 36gb with 8megs cache did ~23s for safemode. I time it from the black screen you see just when the windows logo (loading screen) is appearing.
tom10167
04-04-09, 11:00 AM
step 1 sell all your raptors
step 2 buy an Intel SSD
step 3 ?????
step 4 profit
step 1 sell all your raptors
step 2 buy an Intel SSD
step 3 ?????
step 4 profit
LOL. Actually, I was thinking just that last night lol!!
An INTEL SSD would cost more than these 2 raptors. I'd probably only get like $130 for these drives, no?
shadowdr
04-04-09, 06:34 PM
It would be faster with SSD's but there is nothing wrong with your Raptors. SSD's must also be aligned to work well. When you say 58 seconds to boot , do you mean from the time you hit the start button or from some other point? It takes mine a little over a minute but with Page Defrag, bios and Raid bios as well as bios logo it just takes that long. when Windows hits the loading bar it only moves across one and a half times before page defrags for 10 or more seconds and then the desktop jumps up but it takes another 10 for Mcaffe and Core Temp to display.
It would be faster with SSD's but there is nothing wrong with your Raptors. SSD's must also be aligned to work well. When you say 58 seconds to boot , do you mean from the time you hit the start button or from some other point? It takes mine a little over a minute but with Page Defrag, bios and Raid bios as well as bios logo it just takes that long. when Windows hits the loading bar it only moves across one and a half times before page defrags for 10 or more seconds and then the desktop jumps up but it takes another 10 for Mcaffe and Core Temp to display.
I mentioned it already, bud. :)
I time it from the black screen JUST before the windows loadup screen, until the taskbar on both monitors are loaded up. As long as I time the same thing every time, it's relevant enough for me.
My windows bar goes a ton of times before the desktop is trying to show up.
shadowdr
04-04-09, 07:49 PM
Yea, sorry I missed it reviewing the thread. Have you run a Bootvis trace to see if it is a bad driver delay or hanging process?
Yea, sorry I missed it reviewing the thread. Have you run a Bootvis trace to see if it is a bad driver delay or hanging process?
Bootvis trace? I've never heard of that... just googled to download it.
I'm learning new things in here!! :)
I'm getting sick and tired of nothing working for me!!!!!! :(
Bootvis isn't working out for me. I did a boot+drivers 3 reboot and when I try to open the BIN I get this error:
vlaszlo
04-05-09, 02:23 PM
bootvis is not working since few years ( works with no SP or SP1 )
this slow boot time is a windows driver/services/startup issue.
I was once frustrated with 50sec boot time, then optimized the system with XP smoker, the result was 15 sec boot !
uninstalled xp smoker trial, and went back to 50 sec grr:)
Last time i had 120 sec boot time, started uninstalling things and after VMWare uninstall, everithing is normal again ( 15-20 sec ).
btw my xp survived 3 motherboards ( s754->AM2->lga775)
shadowdr
04-05-09, 04:32 PM
I'm getting sick and tired of nothing working for me!!!!!! :(
Bootvis isn't working out for me. I did a boot+drivers 3 reboot and when I try to open the BIN I get this error:
Thats just weird. You must have something else wrong, I just ran it and it worked fine for me and we are running the same XP. You could have a bad install disk or a bad drive reading the disk or just throwing up errors once in a while, perhaps even unstable memory?
Thats just weird. You must have something else wrong, I just ran it and it worked fine for me and we are running the same XP. You could have a bad install disk or a bad drive reading the disk or just throwing up errors once in a while, perhaps even unstable memory?
I'm very aggravated... trust me... I'll hopefully get to the bottom of it...
shadowdr
04-06-09, 06:30 AM
Hmm, well alot of people have the same error as you so it is the program and not an error in your system. Another suggestion is Starup CPL found here. (http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml) Very small and effective way to keep the taskbar to a minimum and keep the junk programs from running in auto instead of being manualy started when needed.
iMDementeD
04-06-09, 05:57 PM
you should download a program called boot timer..i use it to time my boot up without guessing or starting from after post etc..
anyway im using 3 74gbs on win7..two are 8mb cache one 16mb cache and on the boot timer it takes 28seconds
maybe you can run urs to see what it is..also try disabling as many startup programs and processes that you dont need running
Hmm, well alot of people have the same error as you so it is the program and not an error in your system. Another suggestion is Starup CPL found here. (http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml) Very small and effective way to keep the taskbar to a minimum and keep the junk programs from running in auto instead of being manualy started when needed.
you should download a program called boot timer..i use it to time my boot up without guessing or starting from after post etc..
anyway im using 3 74gbs on win7..two are 8mb cache one 16mb cache and on the boot timer it takes 28seconds
maybe you can run urs to see what it is..also try disabling as many startup programs and processes that you dont need running
I've definitely disabled a ton of stuff from startup guys. What I do with 'services' is go to 'msconfig' and click on "hide all microsoft services", then I disable everything except for Kaspersky, Logmein (remote access), and I'd have to check the rest, but there's not much. Then I go to STARTUP and leave only the important stuff like Kaspersky, logmein, creative x-fi stuff, poweriso (yes I use it, but just recently added after creating this thread), and the like.
For the most part, I've cleared out the unnecessary stuff. My taskbar only has a few icons on the right side, and they are all what I want.
It's gotta be something I'm overlooking... either:
something is not aligned correctly with the raid/disks (and I don't have much knowledge with this NOR do I know how to fix it)
a driver or app is completely owning my startup, like Kaspersky or Creative X-Fi. I tried uninstalling the Creative X-Fi stuff, but it only uninstalled the apps... there's no uninstall option for creative drivers. :(
HOW DO I MAKE SURE MY STUFF IS ALIGNED CORRECTLY?? I've already tried windows defrag and paragon total defrag app. :( Anything else I could try to make sure the disks are set up correctly???
If I'm going to mess with this (starting offset) (the starting offset), does that mean I have to install windows on a different drive and then format my raptors from within windows??
KillrBuckeye
04-06-09, 09:24 PM
I tried uninstalling the Creative X-Fi stuff, but it only uninstalled the apps... there's no uninstall option for creative drivers. :(
Are you sure? Go to Control Panel => System => Hardware => Device Manager. Double-click on the X-Fi entry under "Sound, video and game controllers". Click on the driver tab and push Uninstall. It's worth a try, just to see what it does to your boot time.
This isn't the correct way to disable services, go to run and type services.msc and disable it through that method.
Here is a guide on what to disable:
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm
Hope that helps
I've definitely disabled a ton of stuff from startup guys. What I do with 'services' is go to 'msconfig' and click on "hide all microsoft services", then I disable everything except for Kaspersky, Logmein (remote access), and I'd have to check the rest, but there's not much. Then I go to STARTUP and leave only the important stuff like Kaspersky, logmein, creative x-fi stuff, poweriso (yes I use it, but just recently added after creating this thread), and the like.
For the most part, I've cleared out the unnecessary stuff. My taskbar only has a few icons on the right side, and they are all what I want.
It's gotta be something I'm overlooking... either:
something is not aligned correctly with the raid/disks (and I don't have much knowledge with this NOR do I know how to fix it)
a driver or app is completely owning my startup, like Kaspersky or Creative X-Fi. I tried uninstalling the Creative X-Fi stuff, but it only uninstalled the apps... there's no uninstall option for creative drivers. :(
HOW DO I MAKE SURE MY STUFF IS ALIGNED CORRECTLY?? I've already tried windows defrag and paragon total defrag app. :( Anything else I could try to make sure the disks are set up correctly???
If I'm going to mess with this (starting offset) (the starting offset), does that mean I have to install windows on a different drive and then format my raptors from within windows??
Are you sure? Go to Control Panel => System => Hardware => Device Manager. Double-click on the X-Fi entry under "Sound, video and game controllers". Click on the driver tab and push Uninstall. It's worth a try, just to see what it does to your boot time.
I was afraid that would be the only way to do it too. :( I'm thinking of just starting all over... this really stinks!! :(
This isn't the correct way to disable services, go to run and type services.msc and disable it through that method.
Here is a guide on what to disable:
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm
Hope that helps
Thanks for the links... reading up on it right now... I guess I'll have to go down the list and do the tweaks one-by-one. :)
iMDementeD
04-06-09, 10:46 PM
dl and use boot timer to get accurate times..
dl and use boot timer to get accurate times..
:( So sad.
1st one @ ~69 sec is my 2x74gb 16meg cache raptors in raid0 45gb stripe, running a 4ghz wolfdale core2 w/ddr3.
2nd one @ ~32 sec is a single 36gb 8meg cache raptor, running ~2.9ghz on a brisbane AM2 w/ddr2.
Un-freakin'-believable. The system that should be half the speed of the other is over 2x as fast for booting.
KillrBuckeye
04-07-09, 06:25 AM
:( So sad.
1st one @ ~69 sec is my 2x74gb 16meg cache raptors in raid0 45gb stripe, running a 4ghz wolfdale core2 w/ddr3.
2nd one @ ~32 sec is a single 36gb 8meg cache raptor, running ~2.9ghz on a brisbane AM2 w/ddr2.
Un-freakin'-believable. The system that should be half the speed of the other is over 2x as fast for booting.Well, the two systems are loading different sets of drivers. Again, I don't think it's your hardware that's holding you back. My guess is that if you used the single 36 GB Raptor in your Wolfdale system as the OS drive, the boot time would probably increase to over 70 seconds.
Well, the two systems are loading different sets of drivers. Again, I don't think it's your hardware that's holding you back. My guess is that if you used the single 36 GB Raptor in your Wolfdale system as the OS drive, the boot time would probably increase to over 70 seconds.
Yeah, I know... just pointing out the BS I'm going through... :(
KillrBuckeye
04-07-09, 03:30 PM
Do you have a spare hard drive you can install in your rig? If so, you could temporarily disable your RAID array (just unplug the two Raptors) and install a fresh version of Windows on the spare drive. Time the boot up with a fresh installation and after every driver installation. This should allow you to identify what's causing the big jump in boot time.
Do you have a spare hard drive you can install in your rig? If so, you could temporarily disable your RAID array (just unplug the two Raptors) and install a fresh version of Windows on the spare drive. Time the boot up with a fresh installation and after every driver installation. This should allow you to identify what's causing the big jump in boot time.
Just got 2x36GB 16m raptors in the mail today. I'm going to test out ASAP. :)
Should be a good enough comparison. Maybe I'll just use the 36gb drives and once it's all figured out I'll image it to the 74s...
The only thing is how the heck do I figure out how to format correctly based on Shadowdr's post here:
Here (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929491) is an article by MS describing how to align the partitions when formatting. I can't find the post made here for alignment but here (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48309)is a guide for SSD's on another forum. It seems that MS has been aware for some time of this and guides for alignment on SQL servers as well as other raid servers are easily found in a search for drive alignment.
About the setting up of the starting offset. Is there a way to do this from DOS, a boot up disk, or the windows install disk?
KillrBuckeye
04-07-09, 03:52 PM
The only thing is how the heck do I figure out how to format correctly based on Shadowdr's post hereThis is just a suggestion, but why not start off with a single drive configuration? If after installing all drivers and relevant apps on the single drive, boot time is similar to or slightly longer than what you were experiencing with your RAID array, then you know the long boot times probably aren't related to partition misalignment on the RAID array.
shadowdr
04-07-09, 04:48 PM
You can get a Vista recovery disk Here. (http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/windows-vista-recovery-disc-download/) You can use this (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=326656&postcount=3) thread to make the offset.
Vista will start all partitions with a 1024 offset that universally works for all stripe sizes, so no need to do the math, so if you have a Vista disk you can use it to format the first partition, reboot and install XP or Image the disk.
You may also install diskpart and read the partition offset to see is it is a problem before going to a lot of trouble. I cannot do the math involved as I don't get the symbols used for it. We only had basic math when I was in school.
Commands are,
diskpart
list disk
disk 0 (or whatever the disk# is)
list partition
Hope this is some help.
This is just a suggestion, but why not start off with a single drive configuration? If after installing all drivers and relevant apps on the single drive, boot time is similar to or slightly longer than what you were experiencing with your RAID array, then you know the long boot times probably aren't related to partition misalignment on the RAID array.
I think I'm going to try the 2x36gb 16m raptors first in raid0. I got another 250gig sata I can try after.
You can get a Vista recovery disk Here. (http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/windows-vista-recovery-disc-download/) You can use this (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=326656&postcount=3) thread to make the offset.
Vista will start all partitions with a 1024 offset that universally works for all stripe sizes, so no need to do the math, so if you have a Vista disk you can use it to format the first partition, reboot and install XP or Image the disk.
You may also install diskpart and read the partition offset to see is it is a problem before going to a lot of trouble. I cannot do the math involved as I don't get the symbols used for it. We only had basic math when I was in school.
Commands are,
diskpart
list disk
disk 0 (or whatever the disk# is)
list partition
Hope this is some help.
Ya I read up on that, but didn't try it yet... thx for the commands.
Btw, I have WinXP Pro SP3, not Vista.
So I popped in 2x36GB raptors and created a raid0 64kb stripe (my 2x74s are on a 128kb stripe, but I wanted to try 64kb). The 2x36GB raid0 array is set to the max of 68gb. I thought about partitioning to 45GB like my 74s, but I said screw it.
Anyway, just messing around... I still don't understand why I have to do any math if everyone says 1024kb offset is good enough. Should I just use that as an offset??
Anyway, it looks like my 2x74gb raptor raid0 config has a 32kb offset. That's bad, isn't it!
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Garo>diskpart
Microsoft DiskPart version 5.1.3565
Copyright (C) 1999-2003 Microsoft Corporation.
On computer: GODMAN
DISKPART> list disk
Disk ### Status Size Free Dyn Gpt
-------- ---------- ------- ------- --- ---
Disk 0 Online 69 GB 69 GB
Disk 1 Online 45 GB 0 B
Disk 2 Online 93 GB 0 B
Disk 7 Online 699 GB 0 B
DISKPART> select disk 0
Disk 0 is now the selected disk.
DISKPART> list partitoin
Microsoft DiskPart version 5.1.3565
DISK - Prints out a list of disks.
PARTITION - Prints out a list of partitions on the current disk.
VOLUME - Print a list of volumes.
DISKPART> list partition
There are no partitions on this disk to show.
DISKPART> select disk 1
Disk 1 is now the selected disk.
DISKPART> list partition
Partition ### Type Size Offset
------------- ---------------- ------- -------
Partition 1 Primary 45 GB 32 KB
DISKPART>
*Edit*
According to the calculation, if you have a block size of 512kb, which I feel is always the case (and honestly don't know how to alter that or what the advantages of changing it are), but doesn't that mean you just DOUBLE the stripe size and that's your offset?
If you look at the calculation and works in kilobytes, you'll see that you always multiply by 0.5, meaning that with a block size of 512, your offset will always have to be TWICE that of the stripe size.
Anyone concur?
DAMN IT!!!
According to microsoft's article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929491) I'm trying to run this command:
create partition primary align=1024
except I'm trying 256kb, so...
create partition primary align=256
It doesn't work. I get this error:
The arguments you specified for this command are not valid.
The command create partition primary works, but I think that just creates a partition without an alignment property (offset?).
:(
Is "align" no longer a command? Why the heck does it not work... should I be using "align" like the MS article, or "offset"?
tuskenraider
04-20-09, 05:51 PM
I've never had to jump through any alignment hoops to have a perfectly fine running RAID0 array of various stripes, all being Raptor/VRaptors as if that really matters, but noted. Install the OS "normally" and just watch boot times as drivers and programs are installed to catch the "offenders".
Just for testing, I wanted to image my entire C: drive, reformat with the proper offset (since it's 32KB it's already wrong, was thinking of I should do 256KB), then restoring the image... just to see if that makes a difference.
VinnyTAMU
04-20-09, 08:05 PM
My formula for reformatting every 4 months:
Initial install of XP + Drivers + Office + CS3 + other apps
Tell XP to write MyDocuments contents to separate partition
Boot UBCD4WIN; Run DriveXML
Image C:\ to attached USB drive
Use XP for 4 monthsAfter the 4 months are up I:
Boot UBCD4WIN
Tell DriveXML to restore image from USB drive (C:\)
Boot into XP
Run Updates for everything
Reinstall programs that were not on the image. Every year I remake my Image to incorporate new files/programs.
My formula for reformatting every 4 months:
Initial install of XP + Drivers + Office + CS3 + other apps
Tell XP to write MyDocuments contents to separate partition
Boot UBCD4WIN; Run DriveXML
Image C:\ to attached USB drive
Use XP for 4 monthsAfter the 4 months are up I:
Boot UBCD4WIN
Format C:\
Tell DriveXML to restore image from USB drive
Boot into XP
Run Updates for everything
Reinstall programs that were not on the image. Every year I remake my Image to incorporate new files/programs.
What do you format C: with, the UBCD4WIN? If so, what program on there do you use? :)
Thanks!
VinnyTAMU
04-20-09, 08:25 PM
What do you format C: with, the UBCD4WIN? If so, what program on there do you use? :)
Thanks!
Sorry for the confusion, just mean to say that the re-image process is the "re-formatting"
Making progress. Just assigned an offset of 256K to my 2x36GB raptors:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Garo>diskpart
Microsoft DiskPart version 5.1.3565
Copyright (C) 1999-2003 Microsoft Corporation.
On computer: GODMAN
DISKPART> list disk
Disk ### Status Size Free Dyn Gpt
-------- ---------- ------- ------- --- ---
Disk 0 Online 69 GB 69 GB
Disk 1 Online 45 GB 0 B
Disk 2 Online 93 GB 0 B
Disk 3 Online 699 GB 0 B
DISKPART> select disk 0
Disk 0 is now the selected disk.
DISKPART> list disk
Disk ### Status Size Free Dyn Gpt
-------- ---------- ------- ------- --- ---
* Disk 0 Online 69 GB 69 GB
Disk 1 Online 45 GB 0 B
Disk 2 Online 93 GB 0 B
Disk 3 Online 699 GB 0 B
DISKPART> create partition primary offset=256
DiskPart succeeded in creating the specified partition.
DISKPART>
Look below. It set 251MB unallocated!! Is that really how much of the drive it'll waste? I set it to 256. The Microsoft article says the number is kilobytes.
Disk 0 is the 2x36 raid0 raptors that I'm going to be messing with.
Okay, nevermind, the offset command is NOT what I should use b/c look at this now!!! (Disk 0 offset is enormous)
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Garo>wmic partition get BlockSize, StartingOffset, Nam
e, Index
BlockSize Index Name StartingOffset
512 0 Disk #1, Partition #0 32256
512 0 Disk #2, Partition #0 32256
512 0 Disk #3, Partition #0 32256
C:\Documents and Settings\Garo>wmic partition get BlockSize, StartingOffset, Nam
e, Index
BlockSize Index Name StartingOffset
512 0 Disk #0, Partition #0 263208960
512 0 Disk #1, Partition #0 32256
512 0 Disk #2, Partition #0 32256
512 0 Disk #3, Partition #0 32256
C:\Documents and Settings\Garo>
Whatever, I'm playing around... learning. :)
It's just that the "align" part of the command wasn't working for me in this command:
create partition primary align=256
*Edit*
Okay, I need an updated version of diskpart... trying to find one now...
I'm seriously going to smash my computer with a sledge hammer.
I followed the instructions here (http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=326656&postcount=3) carefully. I used the Vista Recovery Disc, set a 256kb offset, marked the partition as active, rebooted, loaded Acronis True Image Boot Cd, and Acronis will not boot!!
Acronis Loader fatal error: Boot drive (partition) not found.
Press <Enter> to try to boot your OS...
GOTTA LOVE IT!!!
*Edit*
After further review, Acronis I guess has issues. Link (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=192197)
Man... I feel like this is the grand finale... something is telling me to just say SCREW IT WITH RAID 0!!!
pinky33
04-21-09, 01:59 AM
I have been fallowing this thread since you started it. I can not help you with your problem but I can say this. I have had many friends set up raids for there operating system to be loaded onto and all have had problems at some point or another. This is why I decided to buy a single 36gig raptor and not screw around with raid for my OS. Second I do have a raid setup just so I can have fast storage as you can see in my sig. I have tested the speed of my raid in comparison to my 36gig raptor, my 80gig WD (which happens to be pretty fast in comparison to other drives I have used) and my 200gig HD which is slow for some reason. The tests I used are not any form of benchmark but actual use of programs such as winrar for unraring files, decoding and re-encoding movies/dvds/shows. My conclusion is raid is not worth it for me. From now on I spend my money on simple fast single HD's that have a great gig per price ratio.
I am currently deciding on a WD black 1TB or seagate 1.5TB. Black has longer warranty and is slightly faster, but $0.03 more per gig. In the end I will probably buy the WD because of the warranty.
I noticed how you said you might go to single 36gig raptor. Why not go to single 74gig raptor as it is slightly faster and has more space. I have always wanted to upgrade my 36 to a 74 because it is faster and larger, but I just don't need the space so I cant justify it.
Might I ask why you feel you need the speed of a raid?
I really hope you figure out your problem.
-pinky
I have been fallowing this thread since you started it. I can not help you with your problem but I can say this. I have had many friends set up raids for there operating system to be loaded onto and all have had problems at some point or another. This is why I decided to buy a single 36gig raptor and not screw around with raid for my OS. Second I do have a raid setup just so I can have fast storage as you can see in my sig. I have tested the speed of my raid in comparison to my 36gig raptor, my 80gig WD (which happens to be pretty fast in comparison to other drives I have used) and my 200gig HD which is slow for some reason. The tests I used are not any form of benchmark but actual use of programs such as winrar for unraring files, decoding and re-encoding movies/dvds/shows. My conclusion is raid is not worth it for me. From now on I spend my money on simple fast single HD's that have a great gig per price ratio.
I am currently deciding on a WD black 1TB or seagate 1.5TB. Black has longer warranty and is slightly faster, but $0.03 more per gig. In the end I will probably buy the WD because of the warranty.
I noticed how you said you might go to single 36gig raptor. Why not go to single 74gig raptor as it is slightly faster and has more space. I have always wanted to upgrade my 36 to a 74 because it is faster and larger, but I just don't need the space so I cant justify it.
Might I ask why you feel you need the speed of a raid?
I really hope you figure out your problem.
-pinky
First, I was going to try the 36GB raptor to test on... just so that I don't have to destroy the raid on my 2x74s. If I was to go with a single drive, it would DEFINITELY be a single 74gb raptor.
There was a point where I spoke about another 36gb raptor, an 8mb cache one. That's @ my parents' place in my secondary PC. I have a PC there b/c I go there once a week and sometimes pass time there.
Right now @ my place I have 2x74gb 16mb raptors, and 2x36gb 16mb raptors... just toying around.
Second, I like raid0 for the same reason I have an E8500 instead of my old E6400... just a little extra speed to play with, though the headache of raid0 so far IS NOT FREAKIN' WORTH IT!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, I was able to successfully get Acronis to run... I had to register my Acronis v11 serial#, download their latest v11 build, install it on another machine, create a bootable media, burn it to CD, then pop it into my main rig with the raptors.
So I successfully created the offset of 256kb as you guys saw from my previous posts, which meant I had to reinstall an OS to get back up. Well, I had created an image with Acronis onto my eSata, so I went ahead and finally was able to restore the image. I only chose to restore the C: partition and not the MBR (for some reason acronis always gives me the MBR option and I never know if I should use it... but it works when I don't check that).
I restored, and guess what... I went to CMD, checked out diskpart and my offset is back to 32kb!!! WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON!!! Why WHY WHY!!! :mad::mad::mad:
This is hell for sure. I've wasted several hours on this already. I'm very annoyed with this failure.
Moral of the story? Microsoft should have had this figured out ahead of time.
Now what do i do!! lol
hank123
04-21-09, 02:17 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-PERC-5i-256mb-PCI-e-SAS-Raid-Controller-Card-PY331_W0QQitemZ290309150323QQcmdZViewItem
This is what im going to do. I have 4 36G raptors in raid 0. I know what your talking about with some of the slow load ups.
I think lots of it has to do with the raid controller.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-PERC-5i-256mb-PCI-e-SAS-Raid-Controller-Card-PY331_W0QQitemZ290309150323QQcmdZViewItem
This is what im going to do. I have 4 36G raptors in raid 0. I know what your talking about with some of the slow load ups.
I think lots of it has to do with the raid controller.
I'm still messing with this... now trying to do the image from within windows from my 2x74 raps to my 2x36 raps. Trying to set the offset with diskpart within windows, then doing the acronis image from within windows. I chose not to set the 2x36 raps as "active" b/c I figured it might screw up my 2x74 raps. I also chose to NOT give it a drive letter.
I got the image on the 2x36 raps, shutdown, unplugged the 2x74 raps and tried booting. As expected it didn't work, so I'm going to run Vista recovery disk, run diskpart, set the 2x36 raps as ACTIVE partition, set the drive letter, and let's see what happens.
*Edit*
Just checked and still the offset keeps going back to 32kb EVERY SINGLE TIME I restore an image!!!! What the <SMASH> <POP> <CRASH> <BANG>!!!
No matter what I do the offset keeps going back to 32kb even when I successfully set it up as 256kb. I guess a restore of an image always screws it up...
I just tested with boottimer.exe
2x36 raptors in raid0 full partition of 69gb. ~55.7seconds
2x74 raptors in raid0 45gb slice partition. ~71.2 seconds *Edit* just tested now and 63.8 seconds (still slower!!!)
Why the hell are the 36 raps 15.5s faster when they have a larger slice!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm losing my mind again lol.
*Edit2*
Found an image from Feb 14, 2009 same machine. Restored that image. Boot time was 38.4 seconds. Still though the offset is 32kb and not what it should be.
tuskenraider
04-21-09, 08:50 PM
I noticed how you said you might go to single 36gig raptor. Why not go to single 74gig raptor as it is slightly faster and has more space. I have always wanted to upgrade my 36 to a 74 because it is faster and larger, but I just don't need the space so I cant justify it.
The ADFD 36 and 74GB Raptors perform the same.........
The ADFD 36 and 74GB Raptors perform the same.........
The 74 isn't more dense, or is the 36 a single platter and the 74 a dual...
UPDATE:
I tried one 36gb raptor with the same image. 66 seconds.
tuskenraider
04-21-09, 09:17 PM
The 74 isn't more dense, or is the 36 a single platter and the 74 a dual...
One side of one platter, 74, both sides. RAID0 for the speedy boot! Wait........I heard of this magical Matrix RAID thingy that'll double the speed. ;)
hank123
04-22-09, 12:36 AM
One side of one platter, 74, both sides. RAID0 for the speedy boot! Wait........I heard of this magical Matrix RAID thingy that'll double the speed. ;)
I thought Matrix was set up in Windows. After everything was installed.
I thought Matrix was set up in Windows. After everything was installed.
You can install the Intel Matrix Storage manager there, but you can set up multiple raid arrays from the raid bios utility. :)
UPDATE:
I set up a 256kb offset and just did a fresh install of windows. THIS TIME the offset remained!!
So the moral of the story is that Acronis True Image will always default back to a 32kb offset... what I need to test is to see if I image this 256kb offset windows install, if it will do a 256kb when I restore the image.
Fresh install. Only installed windows updates, newest ati drivers, downloaded x-fi driver and console launcher, chipset/lan/sata/matrix drivers, mozilla firefox, AIM, pdfcreator, and other small things...
I still didn't install Steam or any games, and didn't even install any anti-virus (I usually do this earlier on, but wanted to try without Kaspersky for a hot second).
I ran boottimer.exe from the start and it was something like 28-29 seconds. It went up to around 33 seconds after installing drivers, but...
I did windows updates and installed a few more programs and now I'm stuck at 43-44 seconds.
I even installed tuneXP!!! I did the tweaks, defrag, rearrange boot files (ultra-fast booting), and it didn't help AT ALL!
Now I'm not having anymore fun... wasted hours upon hours. I'm just so eager to find out the ANSWER... I have a very hard time giving up sometimes.
I'm thinking of uninstalling things and timing it, or maybe just starting all over and installing windows again and this time timing every single reboot.
By the way, I also tried selective startup. Check it out:
43.781s with selective startup (system.ini disabled, win.ini disabled, startup items disabled, non-microsoft services disabled)
63.859s with selective startup (everything disabled)
46.203s with normal startup
43.781s with normal startup and tunexp tweaks
I guess disabling the MS services also screws things up and makes it slower... I only did that for testing, but disabling services and startup programs made such a tiny difference. Something else is screwing this up. Maybe it's a driver... X-Fi or ATI perhaps...
hank123
04-22-09, 08:23 PM
I have come to find when I run the Microsoft updates it slows things down.
I have come to find when I run the Microsoft updates it slows things down.
I think that's what it was. I can't stop uninstalling, reinstalling, testing... just can't figure out the culprit.
I disabled system restore and indexing service, tweaked my services and startup, and I'm sitting at about low 40s for windows load times. What the heck man... I thought raptor raid 0 was much faster. What's the point of having such fast drives when it doesn't do crap?
And now the Audio Device on High Definition Audio Bus keeps popping up. I thought I installed UAA but it keeps coming up.
I'm totally :screwy::screwy:
Alright guys, I'm totally ready to quit using faster hard drives... all I ever, EVER wanted was a fast boot!! For the life of me I could never do it. And I always buy THE MOST EXPENSIVE goods when it comes to storage drives... well, if not, close to it.
I bought 2x 30gb OCZ Vertex SSD drives. I slapped the suckers in a Raid 0 128kb stripe. Prior to installing Win XP Pro SP3, I aligned the partition to 128kb with the Vista Recovery disk. I checked after installing windows XP and it is in fact aligned to 128kb.
I did no other real tweaks as the Vertex doesn't stutter. Regardless of the general tweaks people do to Windows services and such, this drive still should be blasting through everything. I mean look at my HDTach and ATTO benchmarks at the bottom of this post.
I use boottimer.exe to time my bootup, and after installing my programs and removing the unncessary ones from startup, my boot time is 45 seconds!!! WHY!! This is a completely clean format, virus free, and windows sp3 and all updates.
I just don't get it... I've tried 3x raid 0 configs with 7200.10 drives, with raptors 8mb and 16mb, an Apex SSD 60gig, and now this 2x30gig vertex raid 0 setup.
Nothing makes me happy. :(
freeagent
05-30-09, 10:35 PM
i know how you feel..
i havent owned ssd's yet, but im hard to satisfy too.
im not sure of my boot times, maybe 30-45s is about right, give or take :D
edit:
thats pretty sick man :drool:
i know how you feel..
i havent owned ssd's yet, but im hard to satisfy too.
im not sure of my boot times, maybe 30-45s is about right, give or take :D
When I first installed windows and rebooted, it was lightning fast!! Like 5 seconds... I saw the windows loading bar for like a split second.
I guess it's not at all about the hard drive speed, rather the tweaks you do... if that's the case, I'll stop wasting my damn money on these rip off drives. I should just go and get me a damn WD black drive or something.
If my SSD setup is over double the speed of my raptors, why am I not booting in half the time, or close to it? My raptors would do anywhere from 45s to 60s usually, depending on how much stuff I had loading up... I thought I would be in the 25-30s range with these SSDs. :(
freeagent
05-30-09, 10:43 PM
yeah its all the tweeks that seem to have to be done that has kind of put me off off ssd's for the moment. i dont tweak my os really, im mearly a user in that regard :(
what if you disable your swap file, or move it do a diff drive?
yeah its all the tweeks that seem to have to be done that has kind of put me off off ssd's for the moment. i dont tweak my os really, im mearly a user in that regard :(
what if you disable your swap file, or move it do a diff drive?
swap file? you mean page file??
was thinking of putting in one of my spare wd 250 or 320gig drives... is that what you meant?
freeagent
05-31-09, 11:08 AM
yessir, sorry i meant page file :)
KillrBuckeye
05-31-09, 11:12 AM
Looks like you'll need to stick with S3 standby if you want quick boot times. ;)
freeagent
05-31-09, 11:19 AM
so thats how they do it :D
Badbonji
05-31-09, 02:35 PM
Alright guys, I'm totally ready to quit using faster hard drives... all I ever, EVER wanted was a fast boot!! For the life of me I could never do it. And I always buy THE MOST EXPENSIVE goods when it comes to storage drives... well, if not, close to it.
I bought 2x 30gb OCZ Vertex SSD drives. I slapped the suckers in a Raid 0 128kb stripe. Prior to installing Win XP Pro SP3, I aligned the partition to 128kb with the Vista Recovery disk. I checked after installing windows XP and it is in fact aligned to 128kb.
I did no other real tweaks as the Vertex doesn't stutter. Regardless of the general tweaks people do to Windows services and such, this drive still should be blasting through everything. I mean look at my HDTach and ATTO benchmarks at the bottom of this post.
I use boottimer.exe to time my bootup, and after installing my programs and removing the unncessary ones from startup, my boot time is 45 seconds!!! WHY!! This is a completely clean format, virus free, and windows sp3 and all updates.
I just don't get it... I've tried 3x raid 0 configs with 7200.10 drives, with raptors 8mb and 16mb, an Apex SSD 60gig, and now this 2x30gig vertex raid 0 setup.
Nothing makes me happy. :(
Is the motherboard slowing it down with all the checks, raid BIOS load screen etc? Mine takes longer in raid due to the raid BIOS...
Is the motherboard slowing it down with all the checks, raid BIOS load screen etc? Mine takes longer in raid due to the raid BIOS...
I don't think that boottimer.exe calculates that. I think it calculates from when windows starts loading.
From what I can gather the boottimer probably starts from the time it's closed on windows shutdown in the event log until it is reinitiated on windows start up. It could also be calculating from the time the event log services ends and starts again. You can find it in your event viewer under system. There should be three instances all at one spot from the time you shutdown until windows starts up. So technically it would be timing your shutdown as well.
I'm not 100% sure on this but that's the only true way for it to time while windows is not running.
From what I can gather the boottimer probably starts from the time it's closed on windows shutdown in the event log until it is reinitiated on windows start up. It could also be calculating from the time the event log services ends and starts again. You can find it in your event viewer under system. There should be three instances all at one spot from the time you shutdown until windows starts up. So technically it would be timing your shutdown as well.
I'm not 100% sure on this but that's the only true way for it to time while windows is not running.
I'll have to try it again to test it out, but I highly doubt it has anything to do with the shutdown..
I can tell boottimer to run on the next startup, shutdown, leave machine off overnight, turn on in the morning, and it'll give me a boot time of about 45 seconds, so it has nothing to do with the shutdown time.
Regardless, I know it's relative to itself, so as long as that's true then it's consistent with itself and still a good measure. Let me do a safemode in a bit and I'll post back how long that takes.
Yea I just looked it up. Apparently it doesn't start timing until windows actually starts loading by running in your memory to detect this.
I know when you actually get hardware installed it will load that hardware right as windows it loading. If you remember i think windows 98 did this, when you saw the splash screen you could hit esc and see the IRQ's for all of the hardware that would load. Essentially the more hardware you have actually installed the longer it is going to take to boot up windows AFAIK.
Yea I just looked it up. Apparently it doesn't start timing until windows actually starts loading by running in your memory to detect this.
I know when you actually get hardware installed it will load that hardware right as windows it loading. If you remember i think windows 98 did this, when you saw the splash screen you could hit esc and see the IRQ's for all of the hardware that would load. Essentially the more hardware you have actually installed the longer it is going to take to boot up windows AFAIK.
PCI-E video card, and pci X-Fi with front panel. That's pretty much all that's "extra", although a video card would in fact be necessary.
I guess I'll have to read up on services tweaks... I feel like it's more services than startup programs that affects the boot-up time.
Marshmallow64
08-11-09, 10:07 PM
I know this is kinda of old thread but recently I decided to reformat and test out the 64 and 128 stripe size for 74 raptor ADFD in raid 0, attached is the 64 gb stripe size. I noticed the 64 stripe size is a bit faster for transferring. For the 128 stripe I got 66.5 min, 142.9 max and 118.1 avg. These numbers are averaged out after doing three tests and I did it immediately after a clean install to rule out any other factors. In the three tests all the numbers were around the same with the 64 stripe beating out the 128 stripe on an average of 10 MB/sec. Just something I found interesting.
That's definitely good to know, buddy.
Did you test boot times also? I usually use boottimer.exe - free download.
Marshmallow64
08-11-09, 11:41 PM
No unfortunately I didnt test boot times but the 64 stripe did feel just a bit faster. Another observation was that the 64 stripe made more of that clicking noise while the 128k seemed to be quieter.
solstice
08-16-09, 01:17 AM
Interesting number, I have better min at 80M/sec but lower peak and avg. ( 100 Mb/sec,) for the same brand and model number. I am using ICP 5085BL card for that RAID setup (RIAD0, 2 WD Raptor 74GD with ICP 5085BL)
In any case, my boot time was faster than the 1TB 7200RPM Seagate drive. That drive had a max transfer rate of ~100MB/sec. I also noticed that I can do multi tasking better. It used to be I can feel the interface slows down when an anti-virus or other program is running. These day sit seem to work fine. It is very subjective. I suspect my caching probably helps out with small writes.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.