|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bill is absolutely correct in his evaluation of Win2K....
we've actually just thrown a lot of NICs and video cards out that performed
poorly under Win2K, but were OK under Win98.
Why ? Buggy or poorly written drivers that were not being updated by the
vendors.
Watch-out for older hardware....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Wynne [mailto:tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: catapult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: HD access times
>
>
> >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
> >
>
|