Can windows XP pro be made to use more RAM when copying large files? - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Software > Microsoft Windows and Software
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2005, 09:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 530
Send a message via AIM to TheHeadFL
Default

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.
__________________

__________________
Desktop machine: 2 x Opteron 246, Asus K8N-DL, 2GB PC3200 ECC Reg., XFX GeForce 6600GT, 74gb WD Raptor, 2 x 19\" LCDs, Windows XP x64
Server machine: Intel P4 3.0GHz 2MB EM64T, ECS i865pe, 1GB PC3200, 36gb WD Raptor, Windows Server 2003
Laptop: Dell Inspiron 9100 (Intel P4 3.2GHz 1MB Prescott, i865pe, 512MB PC3200, Mobility Radeon 9700, DVD+R/DL Burner), Windows XP
Linux: P3 450Mhz, 386MB ram, Slackware 10.1 (Running mySQL/Apache)
TheHeadFL is offline  
Old 07-21-2005, 06:13 PM   #12 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
HAVOC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milford, Connecticut
Posts: 4,218
Send a message via AIM to HAVOC Send a message via Yahoo to HAVOC
Default

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.
__________________

HAVOC is offline  
Old 07-21-2005, 08:46 PM   #13 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHeadFL
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.


Quote:
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.
__________________

Maestro is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.