PDA

View Full Version : Vista The God of All Operating Systems


Pages : [1] 2

Drolfrawd
09-13-08, 03:13 PM
Raid 0 fully patched , Indexing, Superfetch, Defender, User Account Control all switched off.

Stable Fast and silent.

Tr1cK
09-13-08, 05:06 PM
You would probably be faster running the drives separate instead of RAID0. Put games and such on the opposite drive than the one the OS and page file are on.

Mr Bigman
09-13-08, 05:57 PM
I always thought raid waster faster than one single drive.

crainger
09-13-08, 07:38 PM
RAID is faster for big files and loadtimes, I'm running RAID and is extremely fast, but doing what Tr1ck mentions is also a way to speed things up.

Tr1cK
09-13-08, 08:09 PM
I have ran RAID0 for about 8 years on various drives and was always convinced that was the fastest way to do things. I had OS and games and pagefile all on the same drive. A few months ago, I reinstalled windows and separated the RAID0 array I had into 2 drives with 1 as
OS and pagefile and the other with just game installs. It cut my load times quite noticeably. I noticed it the most in MMOs that load big areas like WoW.

Drolfrawd
09-13-08, 08:10 PM
Just for info, Vista reported my drives seperate as 5.1 raided they went to 5.9 so for what its worth , this was a major improvement for me and free.

The other way sounds ok , except if you crash with your swapfile on the other drive you will have no dmp files . probs dont matter for most home users , but for serious geeks and business it is essential.

Tr1cK
09-13-08, 08:13 PM
WEI has me pegged at 5.9 for my two main 320s running separate. Take WEI scores loosely.

I do think it works better for any gamer to have game installs on a separate physical drive than the OS and pagefile because, I might be wrong, but it's something to do with one drive can be reading the game and the other can be busy putting things away into the pagefile. This is all just assumption, cause I'm not sure.

Drolfrawd
09-13-08, 08:20 PM
No No it sounds plausible, My assumption was that when setting up a server for general servery things , i always use raid 5 , this is the way things are done at my work. basically raid 0 with parity striping. The performance gain on the servers are substantial, so thats was the thoughts behind my home sytem being set upon a raid array.

grey_1
09-13-08, 08:26 PM
I have ran RAID0 for about 8 years on various drives and was always convinced that was the fastest way to do things. I had OS and games and pagefile all on the same drive. A few months ago, I reinstalled windows and separated the RAID0 array I had into 2 drives with 1 as
OS and pagefile and the other with just game installs. It cut my load times quite noticeably. I noticed it the most in MMOs that load big areas like WoW.

I've been questioning this since I set up 2 500s with 32mb cache in raid0. It's fast, but not any faster really than my single was.

Plus a couple of games are making me miserable with install issues, which I never ran into on a single drive. But I also tried installing games to a separate drive in the past and some gave quite a bit of grief. Have you had any trouble with this?

Tr1cK
09-13-08, 08:45 PM
I've been questioning this since I set up 2 500s with 32mb cache in raid0. It's fast, but not any faster really than my single was.

Plus a couple of games are making me miserable with install issues, which I never ran into on a single drive. But I also tried installing games to a separate drive in the past and some gave quite a bit of grief. Have you had any trouble with this?

I have 3- 320gb drives. C: is my OS and pagefile and most program installs. D: is my storage and downloads drive and E: is dedicated to game installs. When games ask where to install, I just point them to E:. C: and E: are the new single platter 320gb drives from WD. C: is 16mb cache and E: is 8mb cache. Transfer tests show very little difference between the 2 in performance. It works so far with no problems. SANDRA rates them at 75mb/s, but I see constant 90mb/s transfer rates out of both.

grey_1
09-13-08, 08:49 PM
Thanks Tr1ck - LoL, my install is still fresh and here I am thinking of doing it again. :o

crainger
09-13-08, 10:23 PM
WEI has me pegged at 5.9 for my two main 320s running separate. Take WEI scores loosely.

I do think it works better for any gamer to have game installs on a separate physical drive than the OS and pagefile because, I might be wrong, but it's something to do with one drive can be reading the game and the other can be busy putting things away into the pagefile. This is all just assumption, cause I'm not sure.

I have RAID0 for games and OS and a 3rd drive for Backups and Pagefile. I'm superfast.

walterman
09-13-08, 10:28 PM
Turning swap file off is the best trick. :)

crainger
09-13-08, 11:51 PM
I've always had issues turning the swap file off. ::(:

Mr Bigman
09-14-08, 01:10 AM
So running os on single drive vs raid0 allows to os to boot up faster?

I noticed that the 2 raid0 drives take longer to boot os than one of my single drive setups with vists.

crainger
09-14-08, 03:56 AM
If your single takes longer to boot than 2xRAID0 then you're doing something wrong Bigman.

Tr1cK
09-14-08, 09:44 AM
I'm booting pretty fast with one now that I managed to AHCI working right. These high density drives really impress me with their speed.

ASUSEN7900GTX
09-14-08, 09:50 AM
if i could afford iŽll raid 4 300gb raptors adn get a lightning fast system or not

well anyway so shall i go Vista fully and skip XP as a gaming OS?

ya know DX10 and ****

Runningman
09-14-08, 10:10 AM
Put games and such on the opposite drive than the one the OS and page file are on. M$ has been recommending this since the NT 3.0 days. Actually they have said that you should have multiple raid arrays to speed up performance, one for the page files, one for the OS and one for the application(s) being used. If i am not mistake, this is the same theory behind Readyboost.

grey_1
09-14-08, 12:00 PM
I'm booting pretty fast with one now that I managed to AHCI working right. These high density drives really impress me with their speed.

Mine takes almost a minute to boot, which isn't bad really. But it used to boot around 30 seconds. I always blamed it on updates, although I don't know which one, but it starts slowing after that.

Very good possibility I don't have something configured for best speed/efficiency.

hell_of_doom227
09-14-08, 12:20 PM
Raid 0 is much more faster then single drive. Something is not right there with your system.

grey_1
09-14-08, 01:09 PM
Raid 0 is much more faster then single drive. Something is not right there with your system.

Possibly, I just don't know exactly what to look for.

EDIT: nvm, maybe not too bad after all. You guys think this looks right?
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8348/45776865uq8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Drolfrawd
09-14-08, 01:35 PM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a86/dwarflord40/drivetest.jpg
grey download this free app and compare your results to mine as a rough guide only.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/Drive_Speed_Checker_d4426.html

I think your drive read/write seems ok though.

Drolfrawd
09-14-08, 01:59 PM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a86/dwarflord40/test.jpg

Keep in mind grey my drives are just sata and 8mb cache nothing special , your drives are way faster than mine.

Tr1cK
09-14-08, 02:10 PM
C: is WD 320gb, single platter, 16mb cache, has OS and pagefile
E: is WD 320gb, single platter, 8mb cache, has games only

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/7338/dstche2.jpg
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/7627/dsteld9.jpg
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6470/hdtcrz1.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9435/hdtegp8.jpg

As you can see, they are very fast for single drive configurations. I think this is the best configuration as it allows faster simultaneous reading & writing while loading games.
Also, the cache size difference is next to nothing.

That DST program is very inconsistent also. Results bounced all around, especially on the 'File Delete Speed' and 'Directory Lookup Speed'.