Does a slave drive suffer a perfomance hit ?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hello,
I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
as Primary master, and
30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
Both running as UDMA 5.
AMD 1.2 Ghz on a KT133a MB.

Any operation on the IBM that involves reading and writing
to it at the same time is slow.

I used winrar to create a RAR archive made of a some small folders
and files, about 220MB.
Leaving the RAR archive on the IBM, and UNRARing it there,
it takes 65 seconds.
Copy the RAR file to the Maxtor, and UNRAR it there
takes about 30 seconds.

Both drives are defragged and have about 5GB space each.
The things (possibly) affecting the operation that I can see are:
The Maxtor is FAT32(8 kb cluster), IBM is NTFS (8kb cluster)
The IBM is slave
The IBM is getting old and/or it was always this way.

I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.

PS I've run full manufacturers diagnostics and no problems were
found.

TIA for any insights.
Dave
10 answers Last reply
More about does slave drive suffer perfomance
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    NTFS is slower than FAT32 in creating files.

    I would check the smart counters on drives that old.

    "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com...

    > I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
    > as Primary master, and
    > 30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
    > Both running as UDMA 5.
    >
    > I used winrar to create a RAR archive made of a some small folders
    > and files, about 220MB.
    > Leaving the RAR archive on the IBM, and UNRARing it there,
    > it takes 65 seconds.
    > Copy the RAR file to the Maxtor, and UNRAR it there
    > takes about 30 seconds.
    >
    > Both drives are defragged and have about 5GB space each.
    > The things (possibly) affecting the operation that I can see are:
    > The Maxtor is FAT32(8 kb cluster), IBM is NTFS (8kb cluster)
    >
    > I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
    > and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:56:24 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:

    >NTFS is slower than FAT32 in creating files.
    >
    >I would check the smart counters on drives that old.
    >
    Thanks for the info.
    I did a little more experimenting using the ATTO disk benchmark.
    Drive C (maxtor fat32) write=30 mb/s read 28 mb/s
    Drive i: (IBM ntfs) write 17 mb/s read 29 mb/s

    Interestingly enough
    Drive h: (maxtor ntfs logical partition) write = 24 read = 22

    Not sure what to make of this, except it's clear that the IBM
    disk has slower writes. However, the small ntfs partition on
    the maxtor while being overall slower than the fat32 on the
    same drive has slightly faster writes than reads!

    Dave
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com...
    > Hello,
    > I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
    > as Primary master, and
    > 30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
    > Both running as UDMA 5.
    > AMD 1.2 Ghz on a KT133a MB.
    >
    > Any operation on the IBM that involves reading and writing
    > to it at the same time is slow.
    >
    > I used winrar to create a RAR archive made of a some small folders
    > and files, about 220MB.
    > Leaving the RAR archive on the IBM, and UNRARing it there,
    > it takes 65 seconds.
    > Copy the RAR file to the Maxtor, and UNRAR it there
    > takes about 30 seconds.
    >
    > Both drives are defragged and have about 5GB space each.
    > The things (possibly) affecting the operation that I can see are:
    > The Maxtor is FAT32(8 kb cluster), IBM is NTFS (8kb cluster)
    > The IBM is slave
    > The IBM is getting old and/or it was always this way.
    >
    > I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
    > and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.

    Probably the VIA chipset mobo and deficient busmastering DMA drivers.
    Get the latest of those.

    > PS I've run full manufacturers diagnostics and no problems were
    > found.
    >
    > TIA for any insights.
    > Dave
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:29:06 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
    wrote:

    >"davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    >news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com...

    >> I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
    >> and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.
    >
    >Probably the VIA chipset mobo and deficient busmastering DMA drivers.
    >Get the latest of those.
    >
    Hi Ron, interestingly enough all this time I have never installed
    any VIA drivers. XP came out after my MB, so all stuff was supposed
    to be included. Saying that I've just downloaded the 4in1 v4.43,
    supposedly the best of the older set, recommended for my class of MB.
    Cheers,
    Dave
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com
    > Hello,
    > I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
    > as Primary master, and
    > 30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
    > Both running as UDMA 5.
    > AMD 1.2 Ghz on a KT133a MB.
    >
    > Any operation on the IBM that involves reading and writing
    > to it at the same time is slow.
    >
    > I used winrar to create a RAR archive made of a some small folders
    > and files, about 220MB.
    > Leaving the RAR archive on the IBM, and UNRARing it there,
    > it takes 65 seconds.
    > Copy the RAR file to the Maxtor, and UNRAR it there
    > takes about 30 seconds.
    >
    > Both drives are defragged and have about 5GB space each.
    > The things (possibly) affecting the operation that I can see are:
    > The Maxtor is FAT32(8 kb cluster), IBM is NTFS (8kb cluster)
    > The IBM is slave
    > The IBM is getting old and/or it was always this way.
    >
    > I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
    > and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.

    They are in the same league. The IBM is a bit faster on the fast end,
    the Maxtor on the slow end, but only some 10%.
    The Maxtor has the better accesstime but again only slightly.
    However, they both have a big difference between the silent and fast setting.

    >
    > PS I've run full manufacturers diagnostics and no problems were
    > found.
    >
    > TIA for any insights.
    > Dave
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:49:46 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    >"davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com

    >> I thought the IBM 75gxp was supposed to be a good performer,
    >> and the Maxtor average. Something seems suspicious here.
    >
    >They are in the same league. The IBM is a bit faster on the fast end,
    >the Maxtor on the slow end, but only some 10%.
    >The Maxtor has the better accesstime but again only slightly.
    >However, they both have a big difference between the silent and fast setting.
    >
    Thanks for the info. Using the various utilities, I've turned off
    acoustic mgmt for both drives. Still the maxtor has the performance
    edge as I mentioned in my first post.
    UNraring a RAR archive takes twice as long on the IBM drive.
    Dave
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    There have been several responses with theories as to why the drive is
    slower. But the subject of the original post has not really been answered
    (unless I missed something). Does a slave drive suffer a performance hit?
    As I understand it, the slave drive has the potential to perform just as
    well as the master, all other things equal (drive type, file system, free
    space, fragged). Slave and master could have just as easily been A and B or
    1 and 2. Does anybody have any input or comments on that? I appreciate any
    input.

    THANKS!
    --Dan

    "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com...
    > Hello,
    > I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
    > as Primary master, and
    > 30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
    > Both running as UDMA 5.
    > AMD 1.2 Ghz on a KT133a MB.
    >
    > Any operation on the IBM that involves reading and writing
    > to it at the same time is slow.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:heM7d.4133$JG2.1715@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > There have been several responses with theories as to why the drive is
    > slower. But the subject of the original post has not really been answered
    > (unless I missed something). Does a slave drive suffer a performance hit?

    NO!

    > As I understand it, the slave drive has the potential to perform just as
    > well as the master, all other things equal (drive type, file system, free
    > space, fragged).

    Yes.

    With a large maybe: expect on old VIA chipset mobos where anything seems to
    have happened at one time or another regarding EIDE support

    > Slave and master could have just as easily been A and B or
    > 1 and 2. Does anybody have any input or comments on that? I appreciate
    any
    > input.
    >
    > THANKS!
    > --Dan
    >
    > "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    > news:hjopl095srs496rbl4j7d7p6etihrl7a1u@4ax.com...
    > > Hello,
    > > I've got 30GB Maxtor 53073h4 (Diamondmax Plus 45)
    > > as Primary master, and
    > > 30GB IBM-dtla-307030 (IBM 75gxp series) primary slave.
    > > Both running as UDMA 5.
    > > AMD 1.2 Ghz on a KT133a MB.
    > >
    > > Any operation on the IBM that involves reading and writing
    > > to it at the same time is slow.
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Thanks! You just further reinforced my previous thoughts. From you other
    posts I have read, I gather you have some very in depth knowledge of storage
    technology. I am curious what else you are into. I find I run into many
    usenet users in other groups I frequent, as if there is something about us
    that makes us like specific things. Wierd.

    --Dan

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:rvM7d.476487$OB3.298981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:heM7d.4133$JG2.1715@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > > There have been several responses with theories as to why the drive is
    > > slower. But the subject of the original post has not really been
    answered
    > > (unless I missed something). Does a slave drive suffer a performance
    hit?
    >
    > NO!
    >
    > > As I understand it, the slave drive has the potential to perform just as
    > > well as the master, all other things equal (drive type, file system,
    free
    > > space, fragged).
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > With a large maybe: expect on old VIA chipset mobos where anything seems
    to
    > have happened at one time or another regarding EIDE support
    >
    > > Slave and master could have just as easily been A and B or
    > > 1 and 2. Does anybody have any input or comments on that? I appreciate
    > any
    > > input.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "davexnet02" <davexnetzerotwo@hooya!.com> wrote in message
    news:bk3rl05n0br5822ssnlslp4ssrgjci21n1@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:56:24 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    > <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
    >
    > >NTFS is slower than FAT32 in creating files.
    > >
    I should have said "small files". You said you were unraring.

    > Thanks for the info.
    > I did a little more experimenting using the ATTO disk benchmark.
    > Drive C (maxtor fat32) write=30 mb/s read 28 mb/s
    > Drive i: (IBM ntfs) write 17 mb/s read 29 mb/s
    >
    The low write WRT read speeds is unusual. If I: is less than 15% free, the
    cause is likely allocation overhead (searching free space). ATTO does not
    preallocate.

    > Interestingly enough
    > Drive h: (maxtor ntfs logical partition) write = 24 read = 22
    >
    The difference between C and H is higher track density at the beginning of the
    drive.

    > Not sure what to make of this, except it's clear that the IBM
    > disk has slower writes. However, the small ntfs partition on
    > the maxtor while being overall slower than the fat32 on the
    > same drive has slightly faster writes than reads!
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Slave Drive IBM Maxtor Storage