SATA/IDE adapters and paging file performance

[Guest]

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

I just bought a new Windows XP Professional computer from Dell, with a
500 GB, 7200rpm, SATA II hard drive. To my dismay, I discovered upon
opening it that it only has one IDE connector (which is filled by two
CD-ROM/DVD drives), along with several SATA connectors. I want to be
able to add my old 120 GB ATA/100, 7200rpm hard drive to it as a
secondary, non-RAID hard drive.

I have two purposes in mind for this old hard drive: (1) as a place to
occasionally backup some files like mp3's that take up too much space
to back up to CD's/DVDs (in which case performance/speed of the
secondary drive doesn't much matter to me--I won't be doing daily
backups there), and (2) I am considering running my paging file off
this secondary drive (in which case performance will be more
important), because I have heard that this improves performance.

My understanding is that there are two way that I can adapt the old
drive to my new computer (1) using a simple SATA/IDE adapter (along
with a power cable adaptor) on the back of the hard drive, or (2)
using a PCI adapter card. My questions are, (1) is there any
significant speed/performance difference between the two approaches,
and (2) Is it a good idea to put my paging file on the old hard drive,
or would it be better leaving it on my primary hard drive?

Thanks.

 

[peter]

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

You also have a third option: get an external USB 2.0 enclosure and put your
120GB drive there. Use it as a backup.
Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for your
applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would put a fixed
size swap file on your primary/new drive.

 

[Guest]

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

Hi,
do u know "the head of the bottle" ?
That's what u trying to do. Your computer is a new sata-generation and
was made for performance. Using a mixed mode (sata/ata, isa/pci) were
and are only a "between-solution" a kind of beta-version for new
technology. Use ur system as is it and you will endjoy it.
Ragarding the pagefile I would say, it is the same thing. Look, the
transfer data rates of sata and ata are different and to manipulate the
pagefile from a drive that's slower takes more time than other way
around.
If your looking for performance, sell your old ata, put some dollar
more and buy a new sata and put there ur savings and ur pagefile.
Basta

 

[Guest]

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

Lothar of the Hill People <nospam@willreachme.com> wrote

> I just bought a new Windows XP Professional computer from Dell,
> with a 500 GB, 7200rpm, SATA II hard drive. To my dismay,
> I discovered upon opening it that it only has one IDE connector
> (which is filled by two CD-ROM/DVD drives), along with several
> SATA connectors. I want to be able to add my old 120 GB ATA/100,
> 7200rpm hard drive to it as a secondary, non-RAID hard drive.

You sure that there is just one IDE connector ? Thats unusual.

> I have two purposes in mind for this old hard drive: (1) as a place to
> occasionally backup some files like mp3's that take up too much space
> to back up to CD's/DVDs (in which case performance/speed of the
> secondary drive doesn't much matter to me--I won't be doing daily
> backups there), and (2) I am considering running my paging file
> off this secondary drive (in which case performance will be more
> important), because I have heard that this improves performance.

Its a myth with modern systems and its much more viable to have
enough physical ram anyway so the page file doesnt get used much.

> My understanding is that there are two way that I can adapt the
> old drive to my new computer (1) using a simple SATA/IDE adapter
> (along with a power cable adaptor) on the back of the hard drive,

Correct.

> or (2) using a PCI adapter card. My questions are, (1) is there any
> significant speed/performance difference between the two approaches,

The first approach is likely to be better performance.

> and (2) Is it a good idea to put my paging file on the old hard
> drive, or would it be better leaving it on my primary hard drive?

It would be better to leave it where it is.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:06:24 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
uttered like so:

>You sure that there is just one IDE connector ? Thats unusual.

Quite sure. They must be starting to phase those out these days in
favor of SATA connectors (there are a lot of SATA connectors in this
computer). I was also a bit dismayed to discover that there is no COM
port on this computer. It's as if Dell is thinking that if someone is
buying a state-of-the-art high-end computer, they wouldn't possibly
ever want to install any legacy devices on it. Personally I think
there should be a much longer transition period for things like that.

>It would be better to leave it where it is.
>

Thanks for the advice, I will do that.

Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:38:14 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
uttered like so:

>Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for your
>applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would put a fixed
>size swap file on your primary/new drive.

Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what would
anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file, considering that I
have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?

Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 Jul 2005 02:33:32 -0700, "casainfo@freenet.de"
<ghariss@gmail.com> uttered like so:

>Hi,
>do u know "the head of the bottle" ?
>That's what u trying to do. Your computer is a new sata-generation and
>was made for performance. Using a mixed mode (sata/ata, isa/pci) were
>and are only a "between-solution" a kind of beta-version for new
>technology. Use ur system as is it and you will endjoy it.
>Ragarding the pagefile I would say, it is the same thing. Look, the
>transfer data rates of sata and ata are different and to manipulate the
>pagefile from a drive that's slower takes more time than other way
>around.
>If your looking for performance, sell your old ata, put some dollar
>more and buy a new sata and put there ur savings and ur pagefile.
>Basta


Thanks for the response, Basta. I am not at all interested in buying
another hard drive for this computer (this computer has already cost
me over US$7000, and I'm not spending another penny!). The only
reason I want to insert my old hard drive into it as a second drive is
because it won't cost me a thing (except for the adapter), and also
because I am afraid I may discover that I still need some of the files
on it some day if I discover that I missed transferring over any
important data files to my new hard drive. I do this every time I buy
a new computer (every couple of years)--it's my routine.

I'll take your and Peter's advice to leave the paging file on my new
hard drive. That leaves my old drive to serve no other purpose than
to back up some occasional mp3's and other data, in which case
performance of that drive no longer matters to me in the slightest.

From what you, Rod, and Peter advised, it sounds to me like my best
bet is to just use a SATA/IDE adapter on the back of my old hard
drive.

 

[peter]

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

> >Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for your
> >applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would put a fixed
> >size swap file on your primary/new drive.
>
> Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what would
> anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file, considering that I
> have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?

I would set it at 2GB. If it gets utilized to 70%, reset it to more (3GB or
4GB). If it never reaches 35%, reduce it to 1GB. Use Performance Monitor /
Paging File / % Usage Peak while you run your applications. Fixed size
pagefile might help to minimize its fragmentation.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:47:05 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
uttered like so:

>> >Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for your
>> >applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would put a fixed
>> >size swap file on your primary/new drive.
>>
>> Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what would
>> anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file, considering that I
>> have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?
>
>I would set it at 2GB. If it gets utilized to 70%, reset it to more (3GB or
>4GB). If it never reaches 35%, reduce it to 1GB. Use Performance Monitor /
>Paging File / % Usage Peak while you run your applications. Fixed size
>pagefile might help to minimize its fragmentation.
>


Thanks, Rod and Peter. Hmmm, now I have two recommendations--one in
favor of a fixed paging file, and one in favor of a dynamic one.
Anybody care to be a tiebreaker? Personally, I have always used fixed
paging files, but I have never had nearly this much RAM before, so am
not really sure where to set it, if at all.

 

[Guest]

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

Lothar of the Hill People wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:06:24 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> uttered like so:
>
>>You sure that there is just one IDE connector ? Thats unusual.
>
> Quite sure. They must be starting to phase those out these days in
> favor of SATA connectors (there are a lot of SATA connectors in this
> computer). I was also a bit dismayed to discover that there is no COM
> port on this computer. It's as if Dell is thinking that if someone is
> buying a state-of-the-art high-end computer, they wouldn't possibly
> ever want to install any legacy devices on it. Personally I think
> there should be a much longer transition period for things like that.

It's not Dell, it's Intel--they're determined to kill off the conventional
serial and parallel ports in favor of USB, so they removed the support from
their chipsets. Dell would have to put a separate UART in the machine with
the necessary glue logic to hook it to the PCI bus in order to have a
serial port. While I'm sure they're capable of doing that it would be
tying up an IRQ that many users would rather put to work elsewhere.

I suspect that the situation is similar with ATA vs IDE.

>>It would be better to leave it where it is.
>>
>
> Thanks for the advice, I will do that.
>
> Lothar

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dc9cfr01mgn@news4.newsguy.com...
> Lothar of the Hill People wrote:
>
> > Quite sure. They must be starting to phase those out these days in
> > favor of SATA connectors (there are a lot of SATA connectors in this
> > computer). I was also a bit dismayed to discover that there is no COM
> > port on this computer. It's as if Dell is thinking that if someone is
> > buying a state-of-the-art high-end computer, they wouldn't possibly
> > ever want to install any legacy devices on it. Personally I think
> > there should be a much longer transition period for things like that.
>
> It's not Dell, it's Intel--they're determined to kill off the conventional
> serial and parallel ports in favor of USB, so they removed the support from
> their chipsets. Dell would have to put a separate UART in the machine with
> the necessary glue logic to hook it to the PCI bus in order to have a
> serial port. While I'm sure they're capable of doing that it would be
> tying up an IRQ that many users would rather put to work elsewhere.
>
What a load of bullshit.
Intel chipsets have never had com/lpt ports. The mainboard does.

 

[Guest]

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

Lothar of the Hill People wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:38:14 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
> uttered like so:
>
> >Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for your
> >applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would put a fixed
> >size swap file on your primary/new drive.
>
> Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what would
> anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file, considering that I
> have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?
>
> Lothar

Unless you're running things like Photoshop that won't even load without
the presence of a paging file, with 4GB of RAM you could actually do
away with one altogether.

Probably the quickest way to do it.

Try it and see.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

Lothar of the Hill People <nospam@willreachme.com> wrote
> Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote

>> Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM for
>> your applications. In most situations that does not occur. I would
>> put a fixed size swap file on your primary/new drive.

> Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what
> would anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file,
> considering that I have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?

I think fixed sizes are a bad idea, essentially because the size
cant be determined from any of the hardware detail, its determined
by the most demanding software you run on that system.

Demanding in the sense of which app uses the most virtual memory.

The best approach is to have enough physical ram so the
page file isnt used much except at boot time. You have plenty.

 

[Guest]

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

Lothar of the Hill People <nospam@willreachme.com> wrote
> Peter <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>>>> Swap file activity becomes an issue if you have too little RAM
>>>> for your applications. In most situations that does not occur.
>>>> I would put a fixed size swap file on your primary/new drive.

>>> Thanks, I will do that. That raises another question--what
>>> would anyone recommend a fixed size for my paging file,
>>> considering that I have 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive?

>> I would set it at 2GB. If it gets utilized to 70%, reset it to more
>> (3GB or 4GB). If it never reaches 35%, reduce it to 1GB. Use
>> Performance Monitor / Paging File / % Usage Peak while you run your
>> applications. Fixed size pagefile might help to minimize its fragmentation.

> Thanks, Rod and Peter. Hmmm, now I have two recommendations--
> one in favor of a fixed paging file, and one in favor of a dynamic one.
> Anybody care to be a tiebreaker?

It aint about votes with that sort of question.

> Personally, I have always used fixed paging files,
> but I have never had nearly this much RAM before,
> so am not really sure where to set it, if at all.

With that much physical ram, there is no advantage with a fixed page file.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:16:28 +0100, Odie Ferrous
<odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> uttered like so:


>Unless you're running things like Photoshop that won't even load without
>the presence of a paging file, with 4GB of RAM you could actually do
>away with one altogether.
>
>Probably the quickest way to do it.
>
>Try it and see.


Thanks Odie, I may give that a try, out of curiosity.

Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message news:dc9cfr01mgn@news4.newsguy.com
> Lothar of the Hill People wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:06:24 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> > uttered like so:
> >
> > > You sure that there is just one IDE connector ? Thats unusual.
> >
> > Quite sure. They must be starting to phase those out these days in
> > favor of SATA connectors (there are a lot of SATA connectors in this
> > computer). I was also a bit dismayed to discover that there is no COM
> > port on this computer. It's as if Dell is thinking that if someone is
> > buying a state-of-the-art high-end computer, they wouldn't possibly
> > ever want to install any legacy devices on it. Personally I think
> > there should be a much longer transition period for things like that.
>
> It's not Dell, it's Intel--they're determined to kill off the conventional se-
> rial and parallel ports in favor of USB, so they removed the support from
> their chipsets. Dell would have to put a separate UART in the machine
> with the necessary glue logic to hook it to the PCI bus in order to have
> a serial port. While I'm sure they're capable of doing that it would be
> tying up an IRQ that many users would rather put to work elsewhere.
>

> I suspect that the situation is similar with ATA vs IDE.

Huh?

>
> > > It would be better to leave it where it is.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the advice, I will do that.
> >
> > Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:36:44 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> uttered like so:


>> I suspect that the situation is similar with ATA vs IDE.
>
>Huh?

Sorry, I meant SATA vs IDE.

Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:21:45 -0400, Lothar of the Hill People
<nospam@willreachme.com> uttered like so:

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:36:44 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
><see_reply-to@myweb.nl> uttered like so:
>
>
>>> I suspect that the situation is similar with ATA vs IDE.
>>
>>Huh?
>
>Sorry, I meant SATA vs IDE.
>
>Lothar


Oops, what am I apologizing for--I just realized it wasn't me that
wrote that sentence.

Lothar

 

[Guest]

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

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Intel chipsets have never had com/lpt ports. The mainboard does.

Errm, I think you better go and read motherboards 101 and see how com
and lpt ports interface to the internal bus and learn what an Intel
chipset is.

Just a "for instance" to point you in the right direction, a
motherboard in front of me now has an Intel 82801FR I/O controller
hub, do you have an idea what it does?


--

 

[Guest]

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

"Martin Evans" <mcenews@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:qhfie1t84j4q88ctjfpm859u5hnjacrtib@4ax.com...
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Intel chipsets have never had com/lpt ports. The mainboard does.
>
> Errm, I think you better go and read motherboards 101 and see how com
> and lpt ports interface to the internal bus and learn what an Intel
> chipset is.
>
> Just a "for instance" to point you in the right direction, a
> motherboard in front of me now has an Intel 82801FR I/O controller
> hub, do you have an idea what it does?
>
I have the 82801BA and it certainly does NOT have com/lpt/fdc.

Perhaps you should RTFM before spouting more bullshit.

 

[Guest]

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

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Martin Evans" <mcenews@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:qhfie1t84j4q88ctjfpm859u5hnjacrtib@4ax.com...
>> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Intel chipsets have never had com/lpt ports. The mainboard does.
>>
>> Errm, I think you better go and read motherboards 101 and see how com
>> and lpt ports interface to the internal bus and learn what an Intel
>> chipset is.
>>
>> Just a "for instance" to point you in the right direction, a
>> motherboard in front of me now has an Intel 82801FR I/O controller
>> hub, do you have an idea what it does?
>>
>I have the 82801BA and it certainly does NOT have com/lpt/fdc.
>
>Perhaps you should RTFM before spouting more bullshit.


You specifically said "Intel chipsets have *NEVER* had com/lpt ports"

Yes, you definitely said NEVER

They have, they did, they still do (with some odd exceptions like the
half assed one you have)


--

 

[Guest]

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

"Martin Evans" <mcenews@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:vrjie11oljf9kjhki4jsc7j4gsb3tpc2ik@4ax.com...
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Martin Evans" <mcenews@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >news:qhfie1t84j4q88ctjfpm859u5hnjacrtib@4ax.com...
> >> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Intel chipsets have never had com/lpt ports. The mainboard does.
> >>
> >> Errm, I think you better go and read motherboards 101 and see how com
> >> and lpt ports interface to the internal bus and learn what an Intel
> >> chipset is.
> >>
> >> Just a "for instance" to point you in the right direction, a
> >> motherboard in front of me now has an Intel 82801FR I/O controller
> >> hub, do you have an idea what it does?
> >>
> >I have the 82801BA and it certainly does NOT have com/lpt/fdc.
> >
> >Perhaps you should RTFM before spouting more bullshit.
>
>
> You specifically said "Intel chipsets have *NEVER* had com/lpt ports"
>
> Yes, you definitely said NEVER
>
> They have, they did, they still do (with some odd exceptions like the
> half assed one you have)
>
Then provide the URL of the document at intel.com that show any ICH implementing
com/lpt/fdc. The ICH0/2/4 documents certainly do not, and I'm not DLing the rest.

If you are going to make things up, you are just another crackpot troll.

Many hardware sites did full reviews of new Intel 8XX/9XX chipsets. Just google.