Remove the optical drive from that IDE. Never put an optical drive on the same cable as your primary HDD.Originally Posted by TheDave
Move it to the other IDE cable with the writer or just remove it altogether.
Forum Star
BT Rep: +2
Remove the optical drive from that IDE. Never put an optical drive on the same cable as your primary HDD.
Move it to the other IDE cable with the writer or just remove it altogether.
.
Option 1: Raid. Won't give you any noticeable benefits.
Option 2: Get an extra small drive, use it for swap (set max and min size the same), browser cache, temp storage. This will give you a noticeable improvement, also easier defragging.
Option 3: Get more ram, don't use a swap file. Potentially risky (in theory) but speeds things up tremendously. I've used this method for quite a while now, and I haven't had a single probl
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
.
Sorry, VB, but that's out of date.
It used to be true with the original WD IDE specification, but the later ata specs mean that it doesn't matter a damn. All those drives conform to ata specs.
The layout is optimum for direct disk to disk copying or writing from hd to cd/dvd. The only area of poor performance would be copying from dvd-rom to hd, which can be avoided by putting the source in the dvd-rw drive if necessary.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Poster
BT Rep: +3
there is no real reason to get RAID, unless you need alot more bandwith......
for loading games/apps, running games/apps, RAID offers no real improvement......
a Raptor will get you slight improvement, but again, this is more for if you have bandwith shortages (servers, video editing ect.)
the only way you'll really notice any difference is through benchmarking....... but then again, do you want to spend all that time and money just to improve your benchmarks?
n00b
so theres no way to get my loading times up?
would putting a 40 one of those satas for temp make a reasonable difference?
p.s. the dvd reader isn't really used for much other than checking disc protection on games. i left it there rather than on the second cable incase i ever want to copy on-the-fly, is that right?
.
Getting an extra disk for the page file will improve your performance for this reason. When you load a new app, your system has to dump some of the stuff in real memory into virtual memory. If they are on the same drive you get the situation where it dumps something to the page file to make space, then loads part of your app, then it dumps some more to the page file, then loads more of your app, and so on. Consequently the disk heads are flying about to perform this. If they are on different drives the heads don't have to move much, so load times are considerably improved.
so theres no way to get my loading times up?
would putting a 40 one of those satas for temp make a reasonable difference?
p.s. the dvd reader isn't really used for much other than checking disc protection on games. i left it there rather than on the second cable incase i ever want to copy on-the-fly, is that right?
If you go for the above you don't need the drive to be SATA, it won't make that much difference, but since they are almost the same price these days you may as well go for SATA rather than PATA.
If you get rid of the page file that will improve performance all round since there won't be ANY swapping ever, but you can't do that unless you get more memory, at least another 512MB.
Which one is best for you depends on whether you actually need more disk space anyway, whether you've got room for more memory, and which one you can afford.
About your DVD-ROM, you've got that exactly right.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
n00b
cheapest i can get 512 ddr for is £55 i think, but i reckon i could get a hard-drive for £30. come to think of it, i still have an old 20gig but my mobo didnt used to get on with it...
n00b
now this is an odd situaton. i mixed up before about dvds, it was actually;
1
120gig
empty
2
dvd-rw
dvd
anyway i put the dvd on primary slave and it wouldn't boot.
....
now it's
1
120gig
empty
2
dvdr
20gig.
time for some speed tests to see if it's worth the extra disc changes
edit: the odd situation is that i cant have anything on primary slave
Last edited by TheDave; 04-02-2005 at 09:54 PM.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
Lynx, I've run XP without pagefiles for quite some time without running into any problems, despite having a mere 512Mbs of RAM. I would still be doing just that had I not run into the miraculous piece of software that is soulseek.
I got better speeds than with a pagefile, and didn't have any issues at all with too little memory before soulseek.
Depending on what applications dave is trying to run, turning off pagefiles might work just fine with his current RAM.
But then again, if you want to play recent games like I think you do dave, I'd go with an extra stick of RAM if you can afford it.
That older disc may slow you down if it's too old.
n00b
when i started it up with the second drive in it was constantly spinning and slowing the pc down
i changed the pagefile or whatever you call it to be on d: instead of c: and now it's faster than ive ever seen it go
time to try it out on a game
edit:
yesh! desert combat loads in about 1/3 the time, maybe less
Last edited by TheDave; 04-02-2005 at 10:24 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks