|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>but what I really care about is the real world performance with caching.
Me too. After running the patch from:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q260/2/33.ASP
my benchmarks went from 1700-1800 kb/sec to 30,000+/- kb/sec. Moreover, the
time for a hard drive intensive task, like de-frag, went from about an hour
down to about 5 minutes. TS charting loads MUCH faster on start-up, and
there is a huge difference when I load several years of tick data into a
chart.
My point wasn't that this is some great bench-marking tool, but that the
patch was good for me. BTW, I'm not saying "my HD is faster than yours," I'm
saying my HD is faster than mine (used to be). And, FWIW, it's my experience
that there are a lot of new Win2K drivers and tweaks out there that really
help. I'm the last one to up-grade (went right from Win95 to Win2K just a
few months ago), but I've boosted my modem 20%, and my video 50% by
searching out the latest drivers, etc. Win2K is great, but the
hardware/software guys are still working out the right drivers.
Not a tech here, just a guy that likes stuff to run right,
BW
>From: DH <catapult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Omega List <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: HD access times
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:10:39 -0700
>
> > I ran this utility. I do not trust its results.
>
>Yeah, I think they are deceptive when you are running NT with NTFS and
>disk caching. I remembered the old Wintune program I used to run with
>Win 95. It tests disk performance along with tons of other stuff.
>Windows Mag is out of business but I tracked down the latest version the
>program at
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0,10615,18831,00.html
>
>The summary uncached disk speed from Wintune sounds dog slow for my
>system, even worse than it did with that other test, but the performance
>with caching is pretty decent, like 100 times faster. The uncached
>read/write performance is interesting, I guess, but what I really care
>about is the real world performance with caching.
>
>The only bad thing about the latest version of the program is the
>"advice" part was moved onto a web page link that doesn't work any more
>since WinMag went out of business. But you can still get all the
>performance numbers for 95, 98, NT, 2K from the program itself.
>
>Disk results for a medium-slow NT system with a bunch of other apps
>running....
>
>Summary
>264 cached disk MB/s
>2.4 uncached disk MB/s
>
>Cached Disk, 128 blocks
>Open file time (s): 0.00095
>Sequential write time (s): 0.0048
>Sequential read time (s): 0.01
>Random write time (s): 0.00033
>Random read time (s): 0.00081
>Close file time (s): 0.0011
>Open file bytes: 1024
>Sequential write bytes: 524288
>Sequential read bytes: 4194304
>Random write bytes: 65536
>Random read bytes: 262144
>Close file bytes: 1024
>Open file MB/s: 1
>Sequential write MB/s: 104
>Sequential read MB/s: 397
>Random write MB/s: 187
>Random read MB/s: 310
>Close file MB/s: 0.91
>
>Uncached Disk, 2048 blocks
>Open file time (s): 0.0011
>Sequential write time (s): 0.81
>Sequential read time (s): 0.8
>Random write time (s): 2.4
>Random read time (s): 2.3
>Close file time (s): 0.0012
>Open file bytes: 1024
>Sequential write bytes: 8388608
>Sequential read bytes: 8388608
>Random write bytes: 1048576
>Random read bytes: 1048576
>Close file bytes: 1024
>Open file MB/s: 0.92
>Sequential write MB/s: 9.9
>Sequential read MB/s: 10
>Random write MB/s: 0.42
>Random read MB/s: 0.43
>Close file MB/s: 0.85
>
>--
> Dennis
>
|