jim_west Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I finaly succesfully got my 128s raided in 0 and 3 partitions, First a 30 gig for XP 32 bit. Then a 60 gig for vista 64, which I havent installed yet. And the last partition for a work disk. I also have a 400 gig sata and a 1T sata. I did a test with 45 15 meg rared files. I unrared from the 1T to the 400G and it took 21 seconds. I did the same from C: to E: which is my raided 0 SSDs. To my suprise it took 28 seconds. I was expecxting it would unrar instantly, like in a couple of seconds. Do I need to tweak something to get the speed, or is it a bottleneck of some kind? Or is there just no difference in HD and SSD speeds? Also for bootup? When the widows logo pops up and the blue line goes accross? As opposed to my older machine which I just did a new format on, About 2 or 3 lines and windows boots up. With my SSDs for XP 32 bit it goes for 8 and a half lines. Then after that its a long wait of black screen before windows is booted. Id say 15 to 20 seconds or so. Any help appreciated. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaPony Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 A system running a RAID will boot up slower than a non-RAID system, due to the overhead of loading all the necessary drivers. As far as your experiment... you're not accounting for the RAR program to perform the CRC checks involved in the process. A better test may be to build a 2-3gb folder of several hundred small files and another of similar size with very large files and test the differences in copying time from disk to disk using Windows Explorer. I still wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about any particular benchmark. If it feels faster, snappier, and more responsive then you've got what you really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_west Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share Posted August 8, 2009 A system running a RAID will boot up slower than a non-RAID system, due to the overhead of loading all the necessary drivers. As far as your experiment... you're not accounting for the RAR program to perform the CRC checks involved in the process. A better test may be to build a 2-3gb folder of several hundred small files and another of similar size with very large files and test the differences in copying time from disk to disk using Windows Explorer. I still wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about any particular benchmark. If it feels faster, snappier, and more responsive then you've got what you really want. Makes sence. And your correct, I didnt take the rar program itself being speed limited. One thing tho, With my aincient machine, built in mid to late 90s, It tool 1 minute 4 seconds to unrar the same files. Ill try the file copying idea you had. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leexgx Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 winrar is ram bandwidth and CPU limited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.