> Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
> something I need to tweak?
It's still doing over 9Mb/sec, and depending on how fragmented the
files were, that's not bad from a laptop drive IMO - bear in mind it's
also having to read the data as well as write it.
If you know specifically what drive is in it, you might be able to
find some specs to see what the theoretical peak transfer rate is.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Juan Kerr
<juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Vostro 1700 laptop.
>Vista Business.
>1.8 Core 2 Duo.
>2GB ram.
>160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>
>Attempting to move 2 files:
>
>1 @ 4.02GB
>1 @ 1.02 GB
>
>from i: to j:
>
>It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
>unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
>processes.
>
>Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
>something I need to tweak?
>
>All observations gratefully accepted.
My observation is .... mail me the system and I'll take care of it
"real well". Thank you!
Back on topic... depends on several factors so I can't really say ok
or not.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan Kerr [mailto:juan.kerr@bluebottle.com]
> Posted At: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:54 AM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: Moving files - critique this?
> Subject: Moving files - critique this?
>
> Vostro 1700 laptop.
> Vista Business.
> 1.8 Core 2 Duo.
> 2GB ram.
> 160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>
> Attempting to move 2 files:
>
> 1 @ 4.02GB
> 1 @ 1.02 GB
>
> from i: to j:
>
> It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
> unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
> processes.
>
> Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
> something I need to tweak?
>
> All observations gratefully accepted.
Seems about right to me, since you've likely made it worse by
partitioning, not better. It has to do a full seek from partition to
partition between every read and write.
I have to ask, why would you have seven partitions on a 160GB drive? I
have 3TB drives with one partition.
> I have to ask, why would you have seven partitions on a 160GB drive? I
> have 3TB drives with one partition.
LOL I had 4 (or was it 5?) partitions on my first hard drive - a whole
20Mb worth !
It had faulty RAM buffers I think, and anything bigger than about 300k
was liable to being corrupted if moved - making the partitions so
small limited the amount of damage that could be done if it went
wrong.
And to think, I had a full graphical OS and a working bulletin board
on that machine ! (the Amiga rocked)
On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:02:08 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juan Kerr [mailto:juan.kerr@bluebottle.com]
>> Posted At: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:54 AM
>> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
>> Conversation: Moving files - critique this?
>> Subject: Moving files - critique this?
>>
>> Vostro 1700 laptop.
>> Vista Business.
>> 1.8 Core 2 Duo.
>> 2GB ram.
>> 160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>>
>> Attempting to move 2 files:
>>
>> 1 @ 4.02GB
>> 1 @ 1.02 GB
>>
>> from i: to j:
>>
>> It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
>> unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
>> processes.
>>
>> Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
>> something I need to tweak?
>>
>> All observations gratefully accepted.
>
>Seems about right to me, since you've likely made it worse by
>partitioning, not better. It has to do a full seek from partition to
>partition between every read and write.
>
>I have to ask, why would you have seven partitions on a 160GB drive? I
>have 3TB drives with one partition.
Tom, I agree that 7 partitions sounds a bit like overkill but it
really depends on what you will use them for. For example I have the
same size drive and I have 3 partitions but that may not work for you
or him.
"Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:edb33657-ce40-4014-8828-9367393e15e8@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Vostro 1700 laptop.
> Vista Business.
> 1.8 Core 2 Duo.
> 2GB ram.
> 160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>
> Attempting to move 2 files:
>
> 1 @ 4.02GB
> 1 @ 1.02 GB
>
> from i: to j:
>
> It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
> unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
> processes.
>
> Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
> something I need to tweak?
>
> All observations gratefully accepted.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Juan Kerr
<juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Vostro 1700 laptop.
>Vista Business.
>1.8 Core 2 Duo.
>2GB ram.
>160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>
>Attempting to move 2 files:
>
>1 @ 4.02GB
>1 @ 1.02 GB
>
>from i: to j:
>
>It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
>unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
>processes.
>
>Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
>something I need to tweak?
>
>All observations gratefully accepted.
I move huge files around in Vista all the time and don't experience
the system being unusable. I do have 4GB of RAM on my ThinkPad though
and I've turned off Aero, Indexing ,and several other Vista features.
Vista is very fast for me when I turn off most of the features. I
also am using a draft-N wireless environment now, but I didn't
experience the system being unusable for g either.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Juan Kerr
<juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Vostro 1700 laptop.
>Vista Business.
>1.8 Core 2 Duo.
>2GB ram.
>160GB hard drive partitioned c: d: e: f: g: h: i: and j:
>
>Attempting to move 2 files:
>
>1 @ 4.02GB
>1 @ 1.02 GB
>
>from i: to j:
>
>It takes approx 9 minutes during which the system is generally
>unuseable; nothing else going on apart from the normal Vista
>processes.
>
>Is this a "normal" sort of time for such a data transfer or is there
>something I need to tweak?
>
>All observations gratefully accepted.
Question:
Is it better to copy a file from one drive to another and then delete
it? Or, is it better to move that file from one drive to another.
Extension to the question:
What if it's a folder of 1,000 files? Is it better to copy the folder
from one drive to another then delete it? Or, is it better to move it
from one drive to another?
Moving files - critique this? 
Linear Mode
