Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Article #18994Re: WD Caviar 2200 slow?
From: ajb8886
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:20
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:20
43 lines
2596 bytes
2596 bytes
In article <2129@acf5.NYU.EDU>, liuyu@acf5.NYU.EDU (liuyu) writes: >Hi, > I just bought a Wd Caviar 2200 hard drive. The Norton SI only shows about >600k/sec DTR. But it showed over 1000k/sec DTR when I first >installed it. Later it just dropped down to 600k. Welcome to the confusing wonder of ZBR (Zone Bit Recording). With modern IDE drives, the number of sectors on a given track varies with its circumference. The outermost cylinders have the highest sector density (and the highest transfer rate since disk RPM is a constant (3600RPM for this drive, I believe). Thus, if the test is being run on the outermost cylinders, you'll get the highest transfer rate. Also note that the "CMOS" drive configuration (what the computer THINKS the drive is configured as) and what the drive is ACTUALLY configured as (due to "translation"), the test may be actually spanning multiple cylinders depending on the data on the drive is organized. In such a case you would have more overhead due to the head repositioning (which the diagnostics program "thinks" is not occurring due to sector translation). Moral of the story: Do not rely on disk benchmarks too heavily, as the way they are measured can sometimes give widely varying results (particularly with the use of on-drive hardware caches). Alex >The Checkit gives me 890k/s consistantly. I tried a different IDE card. And >the same thing happened again. At first SI showed over 1000k DTR. But after >running checkit which gave me 890k, SI dropped down to 600k. Even after >rebooting, SI still gave me 600k. >I was wondering if Norton SI or Checkit had bugs. Maybe one them change my >CMOS setting (ie bus speed). But I doubt it because I checked my CMOS and >there was no change. >Is there any other small Benchmark programs that I can use? > Yes. Try a recent version of CORE test. It's pretty consistent ALTHOUGH it sometimes gets confused by caching and reports very high performance (but misleading) figures with some caches enabled. >BTW, my machine is AMD386/40, 4meg, 64k cache, UMC chipset.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan21.152049.4508@ultb.isc.rit.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!psinntp!isc-newsserver!ritvax.isc.rit.edu!AJB8886References:
<2129@acf5.NYU.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!psinntp!isc-newsserver!ritvax.isc.rit.edu!AJB8886 From: ajb8886@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Subject: Re: WD Caviar 2200 slow? Message-ID: <1993Jan21.152049.4508@ultb.isc.rit.edu> Sender: news@ultb.isc.rit.edu (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxa.isc.rit.edu Reply-To: ajb8886@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology References: <2129@acf5.NYU.EDU> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:20:49 GMT Lines: 43