Speaking of slow hard drives, RAID 0 slow

[AMDCam]

Hey, I have 2 WD800JD (or soemthing like that) and one's an SE and one's not, but there's no difference except for the fact that one's older, but they're still the same thing and later they renamed the drive. So why is my RAID 0 slower than a standard 5,400rpm hard drive? Is it the model thing, because this is unbelievable. Startups are like a normal computer (but mine's high-end, it should be faster) and I've recreated the RAID array 3 times so far, but it's always slow in Sisoftware Sandra. It's really annoying. Thanks guys

 

[Deleted member 3]

Is DMA on? Any bad sectors? Do they work correctly on their own?

 

[AMDCam]

What's DMA and how would I know when it's on? Yeah, they should work fine on their own, I mean they DO work on the RAID array but they're just really slow. there's definitely bad sectors, I mean I'm missing 11gb (2x80gb=160gb, mine is 149gb). Could it be the RAID controller, like is Nvidia's onboard RAID controller a really cheap one?

 

[Deleted member 3]

DMA = direct memory access, just check your controllers properties in the device manager. As for "they should", they "should" work in raid as well.
And about bad sectors, check anyd rive you can get your hands on (even 20 year old ones), they will list a higher capacity than you actually get. For instance 120Gb discs are about 11Gb, this is due to rounding. 1Kb should be 1024 bytes, though HD manufacturers (all of them) count 1Kb as 1000.
If you want to know if there are bad sectors check using DFT or something.

 

[Urlyin]

I thought I seen a BIOS rev with a fix for Nvidia Raid controller ... not sure if it was Abit ... check for the latest BIOS and make sure you have the latest drivers ...

 

[Solaris17]

And about bad sectors, check anyd rive you can get your hands on (even 20 year old ones), they will list a higher capacity than you actually get. For instance 120Gb discs are about 11Gb, this is due to rounding. 1Kb should be 1024 bytes, though HD manufacturers (all of them) count 1Kb as 1000.
If you want to know if there are bad sectors check using DFT or something.

thats because instead of like 23462384007437kb the disk is exactly 80 gigs but windows as dan said will round so 100000000000000 u see?

 

[Deleted member 3]

thats because instead of like 23462384007437kb the disk is exactly 80 gigs but windows as dan said will round so 100000000000000 u see?

Actually it's the other way around, Windows is the one that is correct. Since if Windows would use 1000 instead of 1024 it would say 1.024 instead of 1 so Windows would actually give a higher number.

Then again to contradict myself and make things confusing Windows is wrong if you're being very correct. Since KiloByte actually means 1000 bytes and not 1024, 1024 bytes is actually called a KibiByte (kibi=kilobinary or 2^10)

Got it? No? Good.

 

[Solaris17]

^what he said i think...only supporting my side?

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

^what he said i think...only supporting my side?

hdd's are always rounded down a bit.. my 6gb ipod is like 5.49..

Is one perhaps a wd800jb and one a wd800BB?

They did not simply "rename" a hdd.

The JB is 8mb cache, the BB is 2mb.

Are they on the same IDE channel? perhaps try one on secondary and oher on primary then.

 

[Solaris17]

ya i noticed my 120gb shows up as like 14 but i read someware i get all my space soo ah o well even if im missing like 14gb it hasnt bothered me

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

ya i noticed my 120gb shows up as like 14 but i read someware i get all my space soo ah o well even if im missing like 14gb it hasnt bothered me

you do get your "space".. its just measured differently

if you consider 1 foot 12 inches, and I call a foot 11 inches, and you ask me to bring you a foot of rope, youll get 11 inches. if I ask you to bring me some rope, youll bring me 12 inches.

Windows uses the 1024bytes = kb, and hdd makers use 1000kb = 1kb.

80gb = 80,000,000 kb when manufactured.

when windows sees it, it divides 80,000,000 by 1024 to get the size.

80,000,000/1024=78.125gb

hopefully that will make it easier using raid o youll lose ~5gb.

 

[Deleted member 3]

80,000,000/1024=78.125gb

Actually 80,000,000/1024 = 78125 Megabytes (Mebibytes if you want to be correct)
78125/1024=76.29 Gigabytes (Gibi, whatever)

The difference between 1000 and 1024 is 2.4%, this difference counts twice so 2.4×2.4=5.76 Which means you always get 5,76% less capacity than advertised. Even worse, once drives will be sold as 1Tb the difference will be even more.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Actually 80,000,000/1024 = 78125 Megabytes (Mebibytes if you want to be correct)
78125/1024=76.29 Gigabytes (Gibi, whatever)

The difference between 1000 and 1024 is 2.4%, this difference counts twice so 2.4×2.4=5.76 Which means you always get 5,76% less capacity than advertised. Even worse, once drives will be sold as 1Tb the difference will be even more.

whoops... forgot that mb is 1024 too

 

[AMDCam]

Is anyone gonna change how Windows calculates hard drives? I mean if 80gb officially means 80,000,000kilobytes, then Windows should read it as 80gb and not read them as kibibytes or what you guys call it.

And they're SATA drives, they're set right (I forgot what SATA's are (primary, slave, computer random), but I know I put the right pins on, it took a couple days to figure it out because I only worked on them about 5 minutes a day. And they've both got 8mb cache's, 80gb's, same models (generally), but one's an SE and one's not, and the SE is a couple months older than the normal one. No difference I see.

 

[Deleted member 3]

Well Windows is correct with the numbers, the manufacturers aren't, then again they do say 1Mb is 1000000 bytes on the drives so you can't sue them.
The only thing both do wrong is using the term kilobytes instead of kibibytes.