Why is my hard drive performance crap?

Feek · 06-01-2007, 20:20

A while ago, I had a nasty on my PC and ended up reformatting the drives and starting from scratch.

Ever since then, I've suffered with poor hard drive performance.

The system is a Shuttle SN41G, all the correct and latest manufacturers drivers are loaded. It has an XP-3200 CPU installed and the drive configuration is thus:

Disc 0 - The boot drive is an Hitachi Deskstar 7K250 [HDS722525VLAT80] 250Gb
Disc 1 - Second drive is a Seagate ST3120023A 120Gb

The CD/DVD is a Samsung SH-S182M which I've just fitted.

I can't remember the exact layout but I think I've got the two hard drives on one IDE channel and the CD on the second

The page file is on the second drive, each drive has only one partition.

Everything is bang up to date. The only thing different from before is that I think I had the drives the other way round with the smaller drive as the boot drive and the larger one as the secondary drive.

But it's just sluggish, it feels slow and sometimes it is actually painfully slow and I have to reboot just to get any kind of performance back in.

Neither drive is fragmented, I have diskeeper running on them both.

The only thing I've just noticed is that both drives are set as basic rather than dynamic. Could that cause performance issues? I can't think of any real reason that it should.

OS is XP Professional, the system has 1Gb RAM.

Any suggestions?

Zirax · 06-01-2007, 20:38

Only thing I can think of right now is have you optomized windows by turning off all the un-needed crap? ie messenger etc?

Did you move the hdds around on the ide cables? ie set two to master or having master/slave but plugging them in the wrong order on the cable? Done that before now, while it still works it can get very slow

Mark · 06-01-2007, 20:45

Yup - cables is what I'm thinking. Check the master/slave jumpers match the sockets on the cable, and if all else fails, try a different cable (assuming you can - getting at the IDE cable on my SFF system is nigh on impossible without gutting the system).

Basic vs Dynamic should make sod all difference (indeed I'd probably expect Dynamic to be the slower if anything). All my disks are set to Basic and always have been - don't see the point of Dynamic unless you're fiddling with partitions lots.

Feek · 06-01-2007, 20:49

No, I've not tweaked windows but it's something I didn't do before but I suppose it could be a cable thing. Call me a n00b but I didn't think it actually made any difference on IDE cables as to which connector the drives went on.

Which should be where?

Mark · 06-01-2007, 20:52

Googled...

If using the 80-wire cable, attach the blue end connector to the system board or host controller, the gray middle connector to the Slave, and the black end connector to the Master.

It's supposed to only make a difference if using Cable Select (which I avoid like the plague), but I'd still say it's a good idea to get it right, particularly if you're having problems.

Zirax · 06-01-2007, 20:55

I kept forgetting as well. It should go mobo->slave->master.

Handy to remember. Probably most apt for here is "the slave gets spit-roasted by the mobo and master"

Feek · 06-01-2007, 21:21

Is it also worth trying to split the drives onto different IDE channels?

Mark · 06-01-2007, 21:24

If you've only got two channels and have a DVD/CD-ROM and two disks, then you have the correct setup - disks on primary, CD on secondary. Any other combination (save removing the CD entirely) will yield worse performance on at least one of the disks.

Feek · 06-01-2007, 22:24

Right then, system pulled apart, cables checked.

It was:

Primary IDE
Boot drive as master, on only connector on cable.

Secondary IDE
CD as master, on end connector.
Second hard drive as slave, on middle connector.

Now I've changed it all around

Primary IDE
Boot drive as master, on end connector on cable.
Second hard drive as slave, on middle connector.

Secondary IDE
CD as master, on end connector.

Will run it for a few days and see if there's any noticeable difference.

Mark · 06-01-2007, 22:27

Sounds good. If the original master cable only had one connector, it might have even been a 40-wire one, which would have been disastrously bad.

06-01-2007, 20:20	#1
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Why is my hard drive performance crap? A while ago, I had a nasty on my PC and ended up reformatting the drives and starting from scratch. Ever since then, I've suffered with poor hard drive performance. The system is a Shuttle SN41G, all the correct and latest manufacturers drivers are loaded. It has an XP-3200 CPU installed and the drive configuration is thus: Disc 0 - The boot drive is an Hitachi Deskstar 7K250 [HDS722525VLAT80] 250Gb Disc 1 - Second drive is a Seagate ST3120023A 120Gb The CD/DVD is a Samsung SH-S182M which I've just fitted. I can't remember the exact layout but I think I've got the two hard drives on one IDE channel and the CD on the second The page file is on the second drive, each drive has only one partition. Everything is bang up to date. The only thing different from before is that I think I had the drives the other way round with the smaller drive as the boot drive and the larger one as the secondary drive. But it's just sluggish, it feels slow and sometimes it is actually painfully slow and I have to reboot just to get any kind of performance back in. Neither drive is fragmented, I have diskeeper running on them both. The only thing I've just noticed is that both drives are set as basic rather than dynamic. Could that cause performance issues? I can't think of any real reason that it should. OS is XP Professional, the system has 1Gb RAM. Any suggestions? __________________

06-01-2007, 20:49	#4
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	No, I've not tweaked windows but it's something I didn't do before but I suppose it could be a cable thing. Call me a n00b but I didn't think it actually made any difference on IDE cables as to which connector the drives went on. Which should be where? __________________

06-01-2007, 21:21	#7
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Is it also worth trying to split the drives onto different IDE channels? __________________

06-01-2007, 22:24	#9
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Right then, system pulled apart, cables checked. It was: Primary IDE Boot drive as master, on only connector on cable. Secondary IDE CD as master, on end connector. Second hard drive as slave, on middle connector. Now I've changed it all around Primary IDE Boot drive as master, on end connector on cable. Second hard drive as slave, on middle connector. Secondary IDE CD as master, on end connector. Will run it for a few days and see if there's any noticeable difference. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-01-2007, 20:38	#2
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	Only thing I can think of right now is have you optomized windows by turning off all the un-needed crap? ie messenger etc? Did you move the hdds around on the ide cables? ie set two to master or having master/slave but plugging them in the wrong order on the cable? Done that before now, while it still works it can get very slow

06-01-2007, 20:45	#3
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Yup - cables is what I'm thinking. Check the master/slave jumpers match the sockets on the cable, and if all else fails, try a different cable (assuming you can - getting at the IDE cable on my SFF system is nigh on impossible without gutting the system). Basic vs Dynamic should make sod all difference (indeed I'd probably expect Dynamic to be the slower if anything). All my disks are set to Basic and always have been - don't see the point of Dynamic unless you're fiddling with partitions lots.

06-01-2007, 20:52	#5
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Googled... If using the 80-wire cable, attach the blue end connector to the system board or host controller, the gray middle connector to the Slave, and the black end connector to the Master. It's supposed to only make a difference if using Cable Select (which I avoid like the plague), but I'd still say it's a good idea to get it right, particularly if you're having problems.

06-01-2007, 20:55	#6
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	I kept forgetting as well. It should go mobo->slave->master. Handy to remember. Probably most apt for here is "the slave gets spit-roasted by the mobo and master"

06-01-2007, 21:24	#8
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	If you've only got two channels and have a DVD/CD-ROM and two disks, then you have the correct setup - disks on primary, CD on secondary. Any other combination (save removing the CD entirely) will yield worse performance on at least one of the disks.

06-01-2007, 22:27	#10
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Sounds good. If the original master cable only had one connector, it might have even been a 40-wire one, which would have been disastrously bad.