On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by running
applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA is serial
in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes have to
come through the same controller, then perhaps running applications off of
the second SATA disk might actually result in a DECREASE in total system
performance?
There are a number of hw items to be taken into consideration if seeking
performance, not just the drives
"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA
> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes
> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running
> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a
> DECREASE in total system performance?
>
> --
> Spin
On May 26, 12:59*pm, "Spin" <S...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by running
> applications off of the second SATA disk? *I understand that SATA is serial
> in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes have to
> come through the same controller, then perhaps running applications off of
> the second SATA disk might actually result in a DECREASE in total system
> performance?
>
> --
> Spin
You need to understand the way SATA drives are handled. Each drive is
directly connected to a SATA port on the motherboard. They do not
connect in a Master/Slave set up on the same cable.
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> running
> applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA is
> serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes
> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running
> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a
> DECREASE in total system performance?
>
SATA interface speed is 1.5 or 3 GB/sec, harddrives deliver 50-70MB/sec. The
drive will be the bottleneck, and two drives (in particular with the swap
partition and personal files on the 2nd one, or even raid0/stripe) can
enhance performance somehow. There is no sense in creating a separate
partition for the swapfile on the first drive, since that would force
excessive head movements across partitions.
Spin wrote:
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that
> SATA is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads
> and writes have to come through the same controller, then perhaps
> running applications off of the second SATA disk might actually
> result in a DECREASE in total system performance?
Any inefficiencies or conflicts within the controller are insignificant and
ridiculously small compared to disk access time.
There's one technique, for example, that loads a program in disk-location
order then sorts the various pieces out in RAM.
MUCH faster than flopping all over the drive to load the pieces in logical
order to begin with.
If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.
Ramone
"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA
> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes
> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running
> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a
> DECREASE in total system performance?
>
> --
> Spin
If data is backed up like it should be, there's nothing to worry about.
Ramone
"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:O%23nlWu3vIHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OaJ$Oc3vIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.
>
>
> Yes it is. Just be aware that if either drive fails, all data is lost.
>
>
On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:25:50 -0400, "Ramone" <hotmexican@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> If you want performance, raid/0 (Stripe) is the answer.
It produces very little additional performance, but greatly increases
the risk to your data, since if any drive in a stripe is lost, all the
data on the stripe is lost.
I recommend against it.
> "Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Gurus,
> >
> > On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> > running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA
> > is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes
> > have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running
> > applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a
> > DECREASE in total system performance?
> >
> > --
> > Spin
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
"Spin" <Spin@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:6a08gtF34g5gdU1@mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
>
> On a machine with two SATA drives, is there any performance gain by
> running applications off of the second SATA disk? I understand that SATA
> is serial in-line technology, that being said, if all the reads and writes
> have to come through the same controller, then perhaps running
> applications off of the second SATA disk might actually result in a
> DECREASE in total system performance?
>
> --
> Spin
Can safely say that when I image my XP partition, and save that image to a
partition on same hard drive it is relatively slow. Slower by about a 1/3
more time as opposed to when I save the image file to another hard drive.
Both, are identical SATAs.
--
Dave
Dual Disk SATA 
Linear Mode
