Topic 'Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...' in forum 'Computer Hardware Help' - dslreports.com

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:49:12 EDT

n_w95482 posted : You could make a backup copy of boot.ini as boot.bak or whatever, try the change, and delete the messed up one/rename the backup via recovery console or a Linux live CD if something happens.
--
KI6RIT

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:26:17 EDT

dolphins posted : Thank you but the limitations of my motherboard makes it not worth upgrading this machine.

As for the rest of your comments, I will keep them in mind when I speak to Santa Claus next month.
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:20:13 EDT

dolphins posted : Thank you both, I have read up on the 3GB switch but am hesitant to modify my boot.ini after borking my MBR not so long ago. As it turns out, I don't get along with Windows all that well. :)

On the up side, I haven't been able to reproduce the lag since first posting this thread.

And no, I won't be starting a new thread in the MS forum but thanks for the advice. In my reopening of this thread, my intentions were to serve as a reference only.

Thanks again.
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:27:48 EDT

Krisnatharok posted :

said by koitsu:

Otherwise, this subject should be discussed in the Microsoft forum. You should expect responses such as "WTF why are you running XP? Run 64-bit 7 already and be done with this".

Or... why are you running Photoshop on a single core processor?

It's nice and all that XP can fit into a quarter gig of ram, but when 8 GB of DDR3 is only $35, upgrading to a newer machine with four cores, a massive amount of ram, and Windows 7 becomes a compelling argument.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:13:45 EDT

koitsu posted : To expand on n_w95482 's advice, you should probably read this MSDN article completely before making use of the /3GB flag:

»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library···%29.aspx

Otherwise, this subject should be discussed in the Microsoft forum. You should expect responses such as "WTF why are you running XP? Run 64-bit 7 already and be done with this".

--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:24:20 EDT

n_w95482 posted : Give this tweak a try.
--
KI6RIT

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:23:35 EDT

dolphins posted : OK, this is a bit embarrassing. After posting this thread I found the option under PS preferences to raise the amount of RAM PS is allowed to use. :o

But

Even when I set it to the maximum amount allowable and it reverts back to 1497MB. Apparently Windows is being stingy with my programs because I have 3GB available. I've been searching for a way to tweak Windows and squeeze out a little more RAM for PS but no luck so far... :huh: :mad:

Anyway, I posted this followup for future reference. :)

--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:18:24 EDT

dolphins posted : My biggest problem is not being able to reproduce the lag at will. Although I'm sure it will happen again as I've been taking on more and more in-depth and creative projects.

This only happened one other time that I know of when my son was creating an elaborate design for a website in PS. He also had been working on a project for many hours when he first noticed the lag. Since I was not at the computer at that time I can't say for sure it was the same problem and even if I was I would be right where I am now, clueless?

The one thing I know for sure is the two instances do have one thing in common, Photoshop!

Thank you both for the help, much obliged.
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:51:25 EDT

koitsu posted : Sadly, not really. I think the key points to focus on are these:

- Photoshop tasks that historically have worked instantly now take 2-4 full minutes
- Memory usage during issue is not excessive (1.5GB out of 3GB), so memory is free / available
- CPU usage varies between 0% and 40%
- HDD activity LED is constantly lit

These are what the folks on the Microsoft forum will need to know to help potentially track down what's causing this. If you're able to reproduce it 100% of the time then that's actually good (for figuring out what's causing it anyway). A screenshot of the Task Manager when the Performance tab is selected and View -> Show Kernel Times is checked would also be good, since it gives an indication of what's taking up CPU (kernel vs. userland programs) and what your memory utilisation is (including the page file).
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:56:22 EDT

dolphins posted : Yeah, sorry about the lack of code, I just copied it directly from Notepad.

OK, knowing the drive is not part of the problem gives me peace of mind but now to pin down the culprit?

I knew this wasn't going to be easy to figure out. Any suggestions on what to do next?
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:37:30 EDT

n_w95482 posted :

said by dolphins:

But I guess the main thing I was worried about was the drop in performance from sequential to random.

What you're seeing is perfectly normal for a mechanical drive. Random I/O is their biggest weakness, and why solid-state drives are so appealing.

said by dolphins:

I'll get the SMART results up soon and should I run CDM at the 1, 2 and 4 GB test levels?

You can try it at larger sizes, but I doubt it'll change much, if at all from 1 GB.
--
KI6RIT

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:06:41 EDT

koitsu posted : Hard to read due to lack of use of [code]
blocks, but the drive appears to be in perfectly good shape; nothing wrong with the drive or any indications of it having substrate problems.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:06:37 EDT

dolphins posted : SMART results:

*** DiskCheckup V3.1 Build: 1005 Report ***

SysInfo DLL Version: SysInfo v1.0 Build: 1028
Time of export: 17:03:50 31-Oct-2012

Device information:
Device ID: 0
Interface: SCSI
Device Capacity: 1907726 MB
Serial Number: WD-WMAY02279284
Model Number: WDC WD2002FAEX-007BA0
Firmware Revision: 05.01D05
Partitions:
C: 1907726 MB

ATA information:

Disk geometry:
Cylinders: 258401
Tracks/Cylinder: 240
Sectors/Track: 63
Bytes/Sector: 512
Total disk sectors: 3907029168
Logical sector size: 512
Physical sector size: 512
Media rotation rate: N/A
Buffer size: 0 KB
ECC size: 50 Bytes

Standards compliance:
ATA8-ACS Supported: Yes
ATA/ATAPI-7 Supported: Yes
ATA/ATAPI-6 Supported: Yes
ATA/ATAPI-5 Supported: Yes
ATA/ATAPI-4 Supported: Yes
Serial/Parallel: Serial
SATA 3.0 Compilance: No
SATA 2.6 Compilance: Yes
SATA 2.5 Compilance: Yes
SATA II: Ext Compilance: Yes
SATA 1.0a Compilance: Yes
ATA8-AST Compilance: No
World Wide ID: 50014EE6012A4DF2

Feature support:
SMART supported: Yes
SMART enabled: Yes
SMART self-test supported: Yes
SMART error log supported: Yes
LBA supported: Yes
IORDY supported: Yes
CFast supported: No
DMA supported: Yes
Maximum Multiword DMA mode supported: 2
Multiword DMA selected: None
Maximum UltraDMA mode supported: 6
UltraDMA selected: 5
Maximum PIO mode supported: 4
SATA Compliance: Yes
NCQ priority information supported: Yes
Unload while NCQ commands are outstanding supported: No
Phy Event Counters supported: Yes
Receipt of power management requests supported: Yes
NCQ feature set supported: Yes
SATA Gen2 Signaling Speed (3.0Gb/s) supported: Yes
SATA Gen1 Signaling Speed (1.5Gb/s) supported: Yes
Software Settings Preservation: Supported, Enabled
In-order data delivery: Not supported
Initiating power management: Not supported
DMA Setup auto-activation: Supported, Disabled
Non-zero buffer offsets: Not supported
Trusted Computing supported: No
Host Protected Area (HPA) supported: Yes
Read look-ahead supported: Yes
Read look-ahead enabled: Yes
Write cache supported: Yes
Write cache enabled: Yes
Power management supported: Yes
Security mode supported: Yes
Security mode enabled: No
Device Configuration Overlay (DCO) supported: Yes
48bit Addressing supported: Yes
Auto Acoustic Managment (AAM) supported: No
Power-up in Standby (PUIS) supported: Yes
Power-up in Standby (PUIS) enabled: No
Advanced Power Management (APM) supported: No
CompactFlash Association (CFA) supported: No
General Purpose Logging (GPL) supported: Yes
Streaming supported: No
Media card pass through supported: No
Extended power conditions supported: No
Extended status reporting supported: No
Write-read-verify supported: No
Free-fall control supported: No
TRIM command supported: No
SCT command transport supported: Yes
NV Cache enabled: No
NV Cache Power Management supported: No

SMART ATTRIBUTES:
ID Description Status Value Worst Threshold Raw Value TEC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
1 Raw Read Error Rate OK 200 200 51 0 N.A.
3 Spin Up Time OK 253 253 21 8758 N.A.
4 Start/Stop Count OK 100 100 0 427 N.A.
5 Reallocated Sector Count OK 200 200 140 0 N.A.
7 Seek Error Rate OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.
9 Power On Time OK 89 89 0 8606 N.A.
10 Spin Retry Count OK 100 100 0 0 N.A.
11 Calibration Retry Count OK 100 100 0 0 N.A.
12 Power Cycle Count OK 100 100 0 416 N.A.
192 Power off Retract Count OK 200 200 0 401 N.A.
193 Load Cycle Count OK 200 200 0 25 N.A.
194 Temperature OK 111 98 0 41 C N.A.
196 Reallocation Event Count OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.
197 Current Pending Sector Count OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.
198 Uncorrectable Sector Count OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.
199 UltraDMA CRC Error Count OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.
200 Write Error Count OK 200 200 0 0 N.A.

--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:49:36 EDT

dolphins posted : OK some great info from both of you. Thank you.

As for Win-7, no thank you, I'll stick with XP Pro for now. The machines I've worked on have proven Win-7 is a resource pig. I can run XP with a firewall, anti-virus and a half dozen other programs only using 230MB of RAM, let's see Win-7 do that! ;)

As for HDD age, yeah, it's about 2 years old now so I guess it's right up there with normal usage stats? But I guess the main thing I was worried about was the drop in performance from sequential to random.

Okay, slightly better performance after booting normally but still a bit worrisome from a layman's point of view.
[att=1]

I'll get the SMART results up soon and should I run CDM at the 1, 2 and 4 GB test levels?
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:20:39 EDT

n_w95482 posted :

said by dolphins:

I'm concerned with the significant drop in performance between read and write and also between sequential and random?

What you're seeing there with the widely ranging results on the 4K random read is OS and drive caching. 50 MB is too small to get accurate results. I'd use the 1 GB test as a more accurate baseline.

The only thing that looks odd to me is the gap between sequential read and write (in my experience, mechanical drives are usually quite close on sequential read/write speeds). I'd chalk that up to either chipset quirks or running it in safe mode.
--
KI6RIT

Re: [hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:52:05 EDT

koitsu posted : Information in question isn't that helpful, sorry to say. Benchmarks don't give necessarily any indication as to what the system is doing -- safe mode helps but only to some degree (I believe a lot of Services are still started in safe mode).

It sounds to me like something else in Windows was doing a large amount of disk I/O (and not necessarily Photoshop).

It looks like you're using Windows XP, which makes tracking down what programs are doing massive I/O a little more difficult. Sadly, this is one of the things Windows 7's Resource Manager is incredibly good at. The only thing on XP that I can think of (hope others have better recommendations) that can do this is perfmon/Performance Monitor, but I don't think that will show what process is doing the I/O, just the rate of I/O.

Regarding the benchmarks: I see no anomalies. You can't seriously be worried about a ~7MByte/sec delta on read and write speed amongst 4 tests, can you? Min/max read=125MB/132MB, min/max write=83MB/89MB. That's quite acceptable.

SMART attributes would be a better indicator (for me anyway) to determine if there is something truly amiss on a hardware level.

Finally, it's very important to remember that MHDDs tend to gradually decrease in performance over time. As I understand it, this has to do with the magnetic aspect of drives; as the drive ages over time, thus more and more writes are issued over time, the substrate begins (to some degree) have an increased number of errors. These aren't errors you would see in the OS (as in I/O errors), these are purely substrate-level and are hidden from the user (drive mechanics, firmware, etc. deal with all of this transparently). I can attest to this theory being fairly true; I've had WD Black drives which performed fantastic when I bought them (start of drive: read=165MB/sec, write=155MBytes/sec), but after 2 years of constant use began performing more along the lines of read=130MB/sec, write=110MByte/sec.. I have some drives (different brand) which are nearly 6 years old and the performance on those is abysmal compared to when I got them.

If your SMART attributes look OK (to me, after I see them), then I'm going to recommend this thread be moved to the Microsoft forum, as folks there can definitely help you with figuring out what's doing disk I/O. One thing I can think of, for example, is a highly fragmented page file (which is something most filesystem defrag utilities do not defrag; there are other utilities, including some from Microsoft/Sysinternals, that can do this for you). The kernel takes care of managing this on its own, and if at some point in the past memory pressure was quite high, I can see this being a potential (but not guaranteed) problem.

{babbling koitsu}
I guess you could say this is another reason why SSDs are nice -- not that NAND flash lasts forever (hardly so, but wear levelling works wonderfully as long as you treat your drive well), but just that it's not going to "perform worse" over time as long as the manufacturer didn't write their firmware like complete crap. With SSDs TRIM is pretty important (GC is generally okay but TRIM ensures good performance all the time), and since I myself use XP with an SSD (thus no TRIM support), I naturally run the Intel SSD utility every ~2 weeks to make sure everything is in good shape. My Intel 510 120GB still performs just as good as it did when I got it a few years ago -- I know because I did benchmarks a few months ago before and after a Secure Erase and the performance was the same. :-)
{/babbling}
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

[hard drive] CDM tests have me worried...

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:27:27 EDT

dolphins posted : While working in Photoshop for a few hours I started to noticed a considerable lag in performance when performing write functions. Functions that would normally perform instantly started taking 2 to 4 minutes to complete. Task Manager showed memory in use during this time was only 1.45GB of the 3GB available and my processor was fluctuating between 0 and 40%. According to Adobe, Photoshop will begin writing directly to the HDD and use it as memory if there is not enough RAM to perform jobs. Clearly this was not the case here but for some reason my HDD activity light was solid during the write functions? Now I'm unsure how integrated (shared) GPUs utilize RAM,CPU and HDD during write functions so it could be part of the problem? But before I get into all the factors involved I'd like to focus on my HDD performance fluctuations.

I conducted these tests in Safe Mode to ensure more accurate results. Freshly defragged & optimized using Auslogics Disk Defrag.

Drives are healthy, S.M.A.R.T. returns zero errors.

HDD: 2-TB WD Caviar Black SATA-6; Secondary HDD 750-GB WD Caviar Black SATA-3 (used for backup, no OS on drive)
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3400+ single core @ 2.2ghz
GPU: Nvidia Geforce 6150 LE Integrated @ 256MB
RAM: 3-GB DDR PC3200 @ 200mhz

I'm concerned with the significant drop in performance between read and write and also between sequential and random?

[att=1]
--
Stop The Mindless Killings Stop Over Fishing