Can windows XP pro be made to use more RAM when copying large files?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I already explained it. Yes, it is related to 'seeking' but its more related to the fact that the drive still only has one set of controlling hardware and read/write arm.

In a drive to drive file copy, the copy can be done asynchronously, since as I already mentioned, there can be some degree of parallelism.

In a same drive file copy, the copy is basically done synchronously, which is slow as heck. The computer has to sit and wait around for the IO operation to complete before it can do anything else regarding the task.

I don't know where the extra penalty is coming from. You'd have to take a very close look at what is actually going on behind the scenes to know this. My point is simply that reading big blocks to ram would only make the problem worse.
 
Check this out. I loaded my MOBO with (4) 1GIG DDR400 Then I mounted a virtual drive to 2GIG worth of the RAM. Then I put my swap file on the Virtual Drive. You wanna talk about performance increase... WOW... I can't wait until the RAM drive cards come out from gigabyte. RAM drives are like 340 times faster then HDD's.
 
TheHeadFL said:
I already explained it. Yes, it is related to 'seeking' but its more related to the fact that the drive still only has one set of controlling hardware and read/write arm.

In a drive to drive file copy, the copy can be done asynchronously, since as I already mentioned, there can be some degree of parallelism.

In a same drive file copy, the copy is basically done synchronously, which is slow as heck. The computer has to sit and wait around for the IO operation to complete before it can do anything else regarding the task.

I already explained that I know why 2 drives are better than 1 before you even replied in the first instance. That wasn't what I was asking about and anyway such a reason doesn't really explain the significant time increase. Which is what puzzles me.


I don't know where the extra penalty is coming from. You'd have to take a very close look at what is actually going on behind the scenes to know this.

This is what I was asking about.


I don't think it's a swap file issue though. Windows shouldn't be anywhere near the swap file when there is so much free RAM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom