Does 7200 make that much difference?
Tim ...
options of HDD's. Would I benefit tremendously from a drive that is 7200rpm,
or is 5400 *usually* sufficient? I have a reasonable spec of machine, PIII
800, 384Mb RAM with a Canopus EZDV capture card.
TIA
Bob McCallister
*certainly* makes a difference if you use a 7200 rpm drive as your
system drive. I have two identical computers (one at work, one at
home) where the only difference is the speed of the C: drive. HUGE
difference. Disk I/O is typically the biggest bottleneck. Personally
I think it would make a difference in capturing video (haven't been
able to test that yet) and overall I think it would make a difference
when working with video.
Hope that helps a little :)
"Tim ..." <usenet_bounce@}-{otmail.com> wrote in message news:<101229443...@eos.uk.clara.net>...
Mark
http://www.maxtor.com/products/DiamondMax/whitepapers/Benefits7200.htm
Sequential throughput, critical in graphics, video, and entertainment
applications, is ultimately determined by the drive's internal data
rate, or the rate at which the recording head transfers data to and
from the disk. It is not possible to transfer data to the host, on a
sustained basis, at a higher rate than it's being read from the disk.
(Some people confuse the internal data rate with the interface data
rate, or the maximum burst transfer rate between the drive and the
host.) While it is critical that the interface rate not be a
throughput bottleneck, all Maxtor drives are designed with an
interface rate sufficiently high that the interface will not limit
throughput.
The factor that determines sustained throughput, the internal data
rate, is indirectly determined by the drive's rotational rate. Simply
stated, a faster-spinning drive will tend to read data from the disk
faster. If two drives, one 5400 and one 7200 RPM have the same
capacity and the same number of disks, the 7200 RPM drive will read
the same amount of data in a shorter period. Files therefore load
faster, the OS boots in less time, and the computer responds more
quickly.
This article has additional info as well. Not bad reading. They have
other "White Papers" available at following
http://www.maxtor.com/products/DiamondMax/whitepapers/default.htm
I'm not a Maxtor sales rep, just found there info useful. Hope you do
too...
Cheers
Mark
hcs...@texlife.com (Bob McCallister) wrote in message news:<423bea0d.02012...@posting.google.com>...
Digital Video Solutions
onboard controller with the Pinnacle DV500 with no problems whatsoever - all
realtime effects work and the drives are each nearly 3/4's full. EZDV isn't
that demanding on a drive, after all it's only having to utilize a single
stream of video.
When the DVRaptor came out I got one and used it for a good deal of time on
a system with only an ATA/33 controller with 5400RPM drives with no problems
in capture and editing whatsoever. Lagging of system drives, whether on
supposedly identical systems or not, is usually caused by other things
besides the RPM speed of the drive. Namely how much actual data is on it,
and how the system is configured with the software installed.
--
Larry Johnson
Digital Video Solutions http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
The home of the "Ulltimate Guide to Digital Video Editing"
877-323-7820 for sales or 386-323-9772 for technical assistance.
We're the clear choice of Hollywood Studios and individuals alike.
"Tim ..." <usenet_bounce@}-{otmail.com> wrote in message
news:101229443...@eos.uk.clara.net...
Bob McCallister
drive is noticably slower and has been from day 1. Now, there's
nothing wrong with a 5400rpm drive, and I'm sure its more than capable
of handling DV, realtime effects, etc. But in response to the
question, "will I receive any benefit from a 7200rpm drive vs a
5400rpm drive?" my response is yes. Even if its just the apps and
files loading faster. :)
"Digital Video Solutions" <webm...@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote in message news:<%dJ58.483741$oj3.91...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> (snip)
codecpage
wrote:
>In reference to my two identical systems, the machine with the 5400rpm
>drive is noticably slower and has been from day 1. Now, there's
>nothing wrong with a 5400rpm drive, and I'm sure its more than capable
>of handling DV, realtime effects, etc. But in response to the
>question, "will I receive any benefit from a 7200rpm drive vs a
>5400rpm drive?" my response is yes. Even if its just the apps and
>files loading faster. :)
From most specs, differences in data rate are less than 7200/5400. For
example 30 vs. 25 MB/s. Latency time may be an issue but also not a
very big one in the average.
What in my experience contributes a lot more to OS performance is disk
cache. Some drives have only 512k cache while others have 2 MB. May it
be your 7200 drive has a bigger cache ?
David Chien
transfer rate of DV.
However, in general, for OS snappiness, speed of application launching, opening
and saving files, etc., 7200rpm is noticably faster and better.
Of course, if you RAID two or more 7200rpm HDs, even faster and even 'better',
IMO.
Tim ...
> I need to 'upgrade' to more storage space, and am looking at a variety of
Some great answers folks ..... thanks.
Initially, the 7200 drive (that I have now decided to purchase, delivery
tomorrow!) will be purely for storing captured AVI's, as well as the capture
drive. I will of course partition it for this purpose. I only ever capture
in small sections due to my 'style' of editing, so the 40Gb drive
partitioned this way will be fine.
However, I note the comments re: using a 7200 as a system drive, and will no
doubt endeavour to upgrade to a second drive in time on which I will place
my OS et al.
Again, thanks.
Bob McCallister
drive as well) I could get away with a 5400 with a decent sized cache?
Any suggestions?
codecpage <nospam-...@email.com> wrote in message news:<vkgg5u4p95lpt84mv...@4ax.com>...
codecpage
wrote:
>So in order to save some cash (as I am about to purchase a second
>drive as well) I could get away with a 5400 with a decent sized cache?
> Any suggestions?
1) The larger the better. Larger drives have not only more platters or
heads, they usually have higher bit density and therefore more data
per revolution. So a large 5400 could as well outperform a smaller
7200.
2) 2 MB or more hard cache. I have WD and Maxtor here and can
recommend both. Others may also be good. You can almost go by price.
3) do not connect 2 drives to one UDMA33 port. large drives need all
the bandwidth. Make them primary and secondary master. With UDMA66, it
shouldn't matter.
4) Use UDMA66 cable anyway. It's much safer even on with UDMA33 as
soon as the drive really uses it.
5) Do not forget to activate DMA in Windows.
6) If you expect a lot of copying from big file to another, like
rendering DV to DV or even huffyuv to something, you may use 2 drives.
Copying files within one drive is very slow because of head movements.
In this case, 2 separate drives are even better than an array.
7) Make separate partitions for capturing only, that you can wipe from
time to time. This way you never defrag. Defragging is very slow on
big drives and may even be buggy.
8) Have at least 256 MB of RAM. Data swapping can slow you down much
more than any drive can. From Win98 upwards, MS' OS alone may use far
beyond 100 MB when running. Video apps can also use large RAM buffers.
The more the better. 98 chokes beyond 512 MB though, so I recommend
just 512.
9) In Win98, optimize the RAM vcache. In System.ini, enter
[vcache]
MinFileCache=32768
MaxFileCache=65536
ChunkSize=512
(if you have 512 MB RAM, otherwise you might want to choose less for
Max)
I hope this helps.
David Chien
> tomorrow!) will be purely for storing captured AVI's, as well as the capture
> drive. I will of course partition it for this purpose. I only ever capture
> in small sections due to my 'style' of editing, so the 40Gb drive
> partitioned this way will be fine.
www.storagereview.com for HD benchmarks.
Note that the fastest areas of data transfer usually resides in the beginning
area of the HD - try to put the most HD intensive data partitions here.
David Chien
> drive as well) I could get away with a 5400 with a decent sized cache?
> Any suggestions?
www.pricescan.com and www.shopper.com for lowest online prices.
A 5400 HD is okay still. Not as fast as a 7200rpm, but still very useable.
David Chien
> just 512.
q108079 -> support.microsoft.com re: vcache settings for Win98 with >512MB
RAM.
Actually Windows 98 and ME can access up go 2GB of system memory, but
realistically, most people can only go up to about 1GB of RAM before
instabilites/no-boot occurs.
--
Win95/98 uses 4GB of addressable memory space of which a maximum of 2GB may
be physical
memory and 2GB of virtual memory,ie., swap file.
The OS places the system files in the upper 2GB.
The range 2GB - 3GB is allocated to core system components, shared DLL's,
and other shared
objects. These components are available to all applications.
The range 3GB - 4GB is reserved for all Ring Zero components, such as file
management, and
VMM. Any VxD's are loaded here.
The lower 2GB is allocated as follows:
0 - 640KB Virtual DOS machine (VDM), or real-mode drivers and TSR's
0 - 1MB When a VDM is running, used for DOS prgm execution. If 16-bit Win
apps are
running, they may run here under the system VM.
1MB - 4MB This range is typically unused. Neither W95 nor Win 32-bit apps
use it.
16-bit Win apps may use it.
4MB - 2GB 32-bit and some 16-bit Win apps run here. Each 32-bit app has
its private
address space; all 16-bit apps share a common address space. (This is why
one 16-bit crash
can bring down the entire house of cards.)
--
The problem is the file cache. In the [vcache] section of System.ini,
you need to specify the following line with a value no larger than the
number I give, otherwise you're likely to run into situations with "Out
of Memory" errors :
MaxFileCache=524288
from www.deja.com users have easily run Win98 systems with 1GB+ RAM:
"I have 1GB in my Dual PIII 800 box, I run Win98 with little problem ( yes
I know with only one processor ) I have a 2 GB swap file on a second hard
drive. This box went from 256megs to 512 then to 1 GB I noticed an
improvement when working with large files."
---
Also, see http://www.aumha.org/a/memmgmtz.htm
---
For >1GB of RAM, see:
Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q304/9/43.asp
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition
Microsoft Windows 98
SYMPTOMS
If your computer has more than 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of memory (RAM), the
computer may reboot continuously when you try to start Windows
Millennium Edition (Me) or Windows 98.
Or, when you try to install Windows Me or Windows 98 with more than 1.5
GB of RAM installed, Setup may stop responding (hang) or reboot
continuously.
CAUSE
Windows Me and Windows 98 are not designed to handle more than 1 GB or
RAM. More than 1 GB can lead to potential system instability.
WORKAROUND
To work around this issue, add the following line to the [386enh]
section of the System.ini file:
MaxPhysPage=40000
This limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 1 GB.
To add this line, use the following steps:
Use any text editor (such as Notepad) to open the System.ini file in the
Windows folder.
Add the following line in the [386Enh] section of the file:
MaxPhysPage=40000
Save the file, and then restart your computer.
For additional information about the MaxPhysPage entry, click the
article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
Base:
Q181862 Specifying Amount of RAM Available to Windows Using MaxPhysPage
STATUS
This behavior is by design.
Chris Mauritz
"get away" with a 5400 drive.
I've had no problem at all capturing/editing DV footage on a dirt
cheap 80gig Maxtor 5400rpm drive. These are going for less than
$120 these days.
Cheers,
C
--
Chris Mauritz
ri...@mordor.net
Bob Dutru
>3) do not connect 2 drives to one UDMA33 port. large drives need all
>the bandwidth. Make them primary and secondary master. With UDMA66, it
>shouldn't matter.
>4) Use UDMA66 cable anyway. It's much safer even on with UDMA33 as
>soon as the drive really uses it.
________________
A warning here,****
I read somewhere that it's better to have each of my 2 hard drives as
Masters on seperate cables and leave both my cd drives as thier
"slaves'
After a short after i set them up this way while I started getting
problems with bad sectors, firstly on a hd that I'd only had for 1
year and then, after I installed a new one (60 gig) with that also.
I have an extremely knowledgeable technician friend who does work for
very complicated systems and setups who told me that it's been
discovered recently that hard drives don't like being on the same
cables as cd's/cd cutters etc and all kinds of problems can arise
(bad sectors etc.).
I had to write out about 8 gigs of my 30 gig hd (the year old one) and
about 5 gigs of my new 60 gig- Drew tells me that this is a little
know fact. On his advive I went back to cabling them the old way, the
30 as Master and the 60 as a slave and had no problems since.
Just so you know!
Bob
codecpage
>
>
>>3) do not connect 2 drives to one UDMA33 port. large drives need all
>>the bandwidth. Make them primary and secondary master. With UDMA66, it
>>shouldn't matter.
>>4) Use UDMA66 cable anyway. It's much safer even on with UDMA33 as
>>soon as the drive really uses it.
>________________
>
>A warning here,****
> I read somewhere that it's better to have each of my 2 hard drives as
>Masters on seperate cables and leave both my cd drives as thier
>"slaves'
>After a short after i set them up this way while I started getting
>problems with bad sectors, firstly on a hd that I'd only had for 1
>year and then, after I installed a new one (60 gig) with that also.
I guess you mean data errors (bad sectrors would mean surface
failures).
I have heard rumors of that but I've never experienced anything like
this. A friend of mie who frequently configures PCs for a living also
hasn't had this so far. I can't however exclude that it may be an
issue with certain mainboards, e.g. hd contollers or drivers, or maybe
with certain CD drives.
I run 3 computers and 5 hds here (Maxtor, IBM, WD), most on
overclocked PCI bus, I copy gigabytes of data every day and I
frequently back up complete systems between the drives, no single
error during sveral years.
The setup I described is the only one that lets me freely plug drives
into any of the systems: If I need more storage for a large DV job, I
simply add another disk. It would be tedious to have to change the
hd's from master to slave every time. So far I haven't had any DVD,
burner or CD drive that refused to work as slave without master.
The only issue with some DVD drives: The system may think they're UDMA
when indeed they are DMA only. Disabling UDMA for the slaves in BIOS
cures it.
David Chien
> Masters on seperate cables and leave both my cd drives as thier
> "slaves'
> After a short after i set them up this way while I started getting
> problems with bad sectors, firstly on a hd that I'd only had for 1
Could be a very unique situation and setup. I've got HDs plugged into
every port on the PC in every which way over the past decade and nothing's
ever gone bad on me. Just set the right jumpers and off you go.
Could be a yucky MB + HD + CD-RW combo that's causing the trouble.....