Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Hard Drive faster.. but slower?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 21, 2012 11:08:25 PM

Alright so I just swapped out hard drives because I wanted a bigger and hopefully faster one. I moved from a WD 500 GB to a Seagate 2TB. When I run a read/write benchmark for the new hard drive it has higher speeds, but when I'm doing regular stuff (mainly internet) the computer freezes up a lot. It did that a little bit before, but now its worse. All my data was transferred from the 500 GB to the 2 TB. The 500 GB is still inside and connected (but it's not the boot drive). I also have another external 2TB and 1.5TB connected via USB.

My other specs are 4gb ram, Intel quad core Q9450, Nvidia GTX 280, Vista Ultimate.

Also, my CPU almost never runs at 100% and my ram is at max around 80% used. So I'm pretty much at a loss... I'm starting to think that 3+ years of using it and having a bunch of different files in and out as just messed it up enough where I may have to restore it... which wouldn't be a catastrophe since I have the first hard drive still - just a big hassle to re-install the important stuff...

Let me know what you guys can think of. Thanks.
a c 317 G Storage
April 22, 2012 3:37:42 PM

Rather than a restore, I would first try a repair re-installation that would keep all your data and programs and only require you to reapply all updates. Back up your data first of course in case anything goes awry. Here is a step by step guide: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/88236-repair-install-...
m
0
l
April 24, 2012 10:37:05 AM

RealBeast said:
Rather than a restore, I would first try a repair re-installation that would keep all your data and programs and only require you to reapply all updates. Back up your data first of course in case anything goes awry. Here is a step by step guide: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/88236-repair-install-...


I don't have a Vista DVD - it just came installed on the computer. If I have the disk (computer is 3+ years old) I have no idea where it is)

More information though. I updated somethings, did a chkdsk, and also /sfc scannow and then restarted. It seemed to run faster initially, but after a while it gets slow. Maybe it just means I should restart more often, but again before I didn't have this problem... so I'm not exactly sure what it is...
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 317 G Storage
April 24, 2012 1:48:24 PM

I would download the legal trial version of Vista from Softpedia and make a new DVD then repair install, just don't enter your code until it is all done and you are happy with the repair. http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Windows-Vista-Dow...

Your registry is no doubt over bloated with junk and a repair install will fix it up.
m
0
l
April 25, 2012 8:38:57 AM

Is there any other way to do it other than a repair install? I know there are registry cleaners... but I'm hesitant to use them since once I remember it messed with a program.
m
0
l
a c 317 G Storage
April 25, 2012 11:37:19 AM

Registry cleaners can work but can cause problems, which is why I do repair installs.
m
0
l
April 27, 2012 5:58:27 AM

I was reading up on registry stuff, and some people say that you don't need to really use registry cleaners since Window supposedly already does it, and/or the files that a program may leave behind after uninstall doesn't really affect anything. Does a repair do more than just fix the registry?
m
0
l
April 27, 2012 5:33:51 PM

Can you run crystal mark and post the results for both drives?
m
0
l
a c 317 G Storage
April 27, 2012 8:27:34 PM

vegasmazza3 said:
I was reading up on registry stuff, and some people say that you don't need to really use registry cleaners since Window supposedly already does it, and/or the files that a program may leave behind after uninstall doesn't really affect anything. Does a repair do more than just fix the registry?

It resets everything in Windows back to the install state, except it doesn't affect installed programs or data.
m
0
l
April 27, 2012 11:47:36 PM

RealBeast said:
It resets everything in Windows back to the install state, except it doesn't affect installed programs or data.


It is able to restore Windows files without affecting any of the data? Seems hard to believe it wouldn't less with any applications. Is there a way to undo it in case it messes things up?
m
0
l
a c 317 G Storage
April 28, 2012 12:32:34 AM

That is why it is useful, really the only way to fix significant problems with reinstalling all your programs. I've used it on many wayward machines that could not be fixed with a restore or some registry repairs.
m
0
l
April 29, 2012 4:43:29 AM

So that link you sent me should work and it won't cause any problems?
m
0
l
April 29, 2012 4:46:31 AM

nforce4max said:
Can you run crystal mark and post the results for both drives?


I've used CrystalDiskInfo and ATTO Benchmark

What's interesting is that the new drive performs better on some measurements (the one that ATTO probably looked at) but worse on others. I'm not really sure what it means though

I can't see any place for image attachments so I guess I'll just write it out...

For the new hard drive:
C: 73% (1360/1863GB) - this is somehow wrong... which I hadn't noticed until right this moment - there is no way added more than 800 GB of data already.
Seq: Read = 137.8, Write = 93.85
512K: Read = 28.05, Write = 28.59
4K: Read = 0.275, Write = 0.268
4K QD32: Read = 0.651, Write = 0.319
All in MB/s

For the old hard drive:
F: 88% (412/466GB)
Seq: Read = 76.40, Write = 73.51
512K: Read = 27.61, Write = 35.95
4K: Read = 0.361, Write = 0.833
4K QD32: Read = 0.800, Write = 0.833
All in MB/s

Other possibly related problems
- I get a runtime error something about nvvsvc.exe. It went away after updating before so I thought it was gone but it came back.
- Can't set a manual system restore point (it makes them automatically, but if I try to set one up I get an error)
- Disk Defragmenter won't open - going to try to do it through the command prompt.
m
0
l
April 29, 2012 6:18:07 AM

I ran a program called WinDirStat which says 507.6 GB used... and then if I have it tell me unknown... I have 852 GB of unknown.... I have no idea how that could happen.

Command prompt says drive doesn't need to be defragged.
m
0
l
a c 317 G Storage
April 29, 2012 2:24:32 PM

vegasmazza3 said:
So that link you sent me should work and it won't cause any problems?
Yes, just review the whole tutorial first and follow it step by step.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
April 29, 2012 3:01:20 PM

I'm quessing you just cloned the old HDD -> the new drive. If so You just tansferred what ever was slowing down the first drive to the second drive. How did you set up the partitions on the new drive - did you auto expand the 500 gig -> 2 TBs. Ideally you whant a small partition, say 300 Gigs for your OS + Programs ("C" drive and the remainder of the drive as "D" for all of your generated Data and files.

For your benchmarks - In General: Sequencials will be faster (and they are), your small file random will sometimes be lower as access time is about the same, but the larger drive will have one heck of a lot more space to randomly find a file Other factors are involved, ie density/ nr platters).
m
0
l
April 29, 2012 9:03:39 PM

RetiredChief said:
I'm quessing you just cloned the old HDD -> the new drive. If so You just tansferred what ever was slowing down the first drive to the second drive. How did you set up the partitions on the new drive - did you auto expand the 500 gig -> 2 TBs. Ideally you whant a small partition, say 300 Gigs for your OS + Programs ("C" drive and the remainder of the drive as "D" for all of your generated Data and files.

For your benchmarks - In General: Sequencials will be faster (and they are), your small file random will sometimes be lower as access time is about the same, but the larger drive will have one heck of a lot more space to randomly find a file Other factors are involved, ie density/ nr platters).


I didn't do it. Someone else did. So I'm not sure exactly how it was done. All I know is that initially after it was imaged there wasn't 852 GB of unknown.... the imaged version was actually initially smaller than what it was imaged from...

The whole new thing is C. I wanted it purposely that way.
m
0
l
!