|
I just got a bigger bird... 
|
|
|
|
|
Aside from the boot phase, when the boot drive dominates, all of the other factors predominate. For a small application, the data drive will be most important; for a large one, the interaction between the memory and the swap file drive will determine performance. If the application is data-intensive, the data drive will also play an important role. Given the information provided, the only answer that comes to mind is, "it depends..."
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
If my motherboard supports SATA 3 GB's, and I set up a pair of drives in a RAID 0 (striping) configuration, does that make the effective data transfer speed faster than SATA 3GB, or is it always limited to 3GB's?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would rephrase the question - if I have a SATA disk capable of sending data at the rate of 10 GB per second what would be the effective data rate on my 3 GB/s motherboard?
The overall data rate of a transmission path is controlled / limited by the slowest device in the path.
You have asked an interesting question, I hope you realize that one of the advantages of striping the disks is to increase the storage capacity.
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the RAID controller.
If your RAID controller hooks up to one 3Gb port on the MB, you will be limited to 3Gb. If it is a PCIE card, depending on the number of PCIE lanes it uses, it might go over 3Gb. So be carefull of RAID cards that use only 1 lane.
If you use software RAID (striping over volumes using Windows disk manager) you will get >3Gb.
All of this is obviously based on the assumption that the drive runs a flat rate of 3Gb. The bottleneck is still the drive, not the interface (unless you can afford those already RAID configured SSDs)
Hope that answers your question.
|
|
|
|
|
Using that speed-demon freeware file-searcher, Agent Ransack, I determined that there are over 25,000 files, with a total size of over 1 gigabyte on my machine whose names contain ... at some position in the file name ... the letters "amd64."
I find myself wondering if these files are in any way essential to this system.
I suppose one way to find out is to delete them all, after backing up the system, and then see if I could re-boot  ... but that seems a bit risky.
Any thoughts about what all these files are, and are they, indeed, related to a possible Win install on AMD hardware and CPU ?
thanks, Bill
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
modified 3-Jan-12 19:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I only found 27 on my machine.........
I expected to see more.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dave, Thanks for your response.
In C:\Windows\winsxs on my machine: are 8,274 folders whose names begin with "amd64_"
Their total contents are 21,013 files totaling 5.81 gigabytes on disk.
In spite of being logged in as Admin on a one-account Win 7 64x machine, I cannot move these folders: I either get a message I need permission from "System" or "TrustedInstaller."
And, yes, I tried opening the "sxs" folder using 'Run command which normally gives you admin rights, but same results. Similarly context clicking ... when all these folders are selected ... shows they are not locked, and not read-only.
But, context-clicking on various single folders in this group, may show they are "read-only."
Time for some Googling.
best, Bill
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
Well, looks like another case where I should have Googled first, and then posted a question here:
See the reply by "sminlal" on this thread on Tom's Hardware forum[^]:Quote: The "amd64" files are required for a 64-bit system. They have the initials "AMD" in them because the 64-bit extension of the Intel x86 architecture was actually created by AMD, and the first 64-bit x86-compatible processors were AMD processors. So when Microsoft first started adapting 64-bit Windows they were designing it for AMD processors.
Intel attempted to create a new RISC-based architecture called Itanium, but it failed to take hold in the marketplace. They were forced to belatedly came out with their own version of AMD's 64-bit design in order to stay in the market, and that's what everyone is now using.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me or MS is never going to fix the XP problem not recognizing ALL USB devices attached to the box?
I have read somewhere that it is KNOWN issue due to boot/ startup process of XP.
I have NEVER had this problem with good ol' NT.
Happy New Year
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
Vaclav_Sal wrote: I have NEVER had this problem with good ol' NT.
...that never supported USB or plug and play...
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
You caught me, I met 2000. Sorry.
But that is besides the point, XP and USB are not friends.
I really,desperately NEED to know why is that.
Not really.
I suspect I will eventually get “standard” answer – you need to update your drivers!
What a cop-out!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, XP is better than 2K. If YOU are having trouble on YOUR machine it is probably the USB host comntrolers fitted.
The USB standard is so abused by manufacturers, at all levels of HW, so dont blame Microsoft.
And no, you wont get new uhci drivers for your chips on XP.
(If you had Vista I would entirely agree, it was a disaster. In so many ways, but particularly with USB.)
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my final comment - if I have a working hardware on 2000 and "upgrade " software to XP I would expect the maker of the hardware would want my business and make sure his hardware continue to function in the new OS.( I just do not get why so many people have problems with Vista and Windows 7. )
Per your comment it appears that it is not the case.
Consortium of vendors, including MS, dreamed up USB “standard” and now they cannot follow it??
No wonder the US economy is in toilet.
Actually I feel that is an understatement – US economy already passed thru the toilet and now ripens and stinks in the septic tank.
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
So it is quite old HW then. Could be it just isnt that good, is is so far out of standardx that the XP USB HCI drivers cant manage the USB cointrollers correctly. Like I said, USB is a mess.
==============================
Nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
I have USB to IDE cable and cannot find a driver for it since I have no idea who made it.
Is there a utility I can use to identify the device? Device Manager is off no help.
Also I cannot get the XP SP3 to recognize SanDisk flash drive. My Gizmo Jr works just peachy.
SanDisk site is also no help - they do not have drivers for Xp SP3. But it did not work in SP2 either.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
In device manager you should be able to use the HardwareID to determine what you have or what is compatible.
There are sites on the net that show you how to breakdown the hardwareid to give the manufacturer/product etc. I had todo this previously for a TV interface to find drivers.
e.g. On my laptop I have an Unknown Device shown
USB\VID_138A&PID_0001&REV_0372
^ ^
| |
| VFS201 Fingerprint Scanner
Validity Sensors
Now, I never used the fingerprint scanner, so never bother installing a driver for it. but at least I know what it is!
See this site; http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-find-unknown-device-drivers-by-their-vendor-device-id/[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luc, what is your "coded" message??
Minor update -
I managed to get XP to recoginize SanDisk 4GB, but still no luck with 2 GB device.
I did not realize I had two of them, of different size, I guess I need better glasses to read the fine print.
BTW - it seems that stuff made in China is ALWAYS too big to plug into another device Made In China. SanDisk USB plug needs WD40 to plug it in my Sony box.
I guess the outcome or lesson learn should be - assuming the vendors follow some kind of convention when they develop a driver for Windoze. If so , is is published anywhere?
Or is it only on need to know basis?
I suppose asking for registry entries would be pushing it.
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
Dave,
thanks this is a good info.
Of course there is no Windoze Help for it.
It woould be nice to know what are there entries good for.
Maybe they nee to be cross checked in registry as you pointed out.
However, since I have no idea where this USB to IDE cable came from I am pretty much stuck for now.
But thanks for your help.
Have a swell 2012
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
When you plug it in, does an Unknown Device appear in device manager?
If so, have a look at the Hardware ID shown in the properties for the Unknown Device.
What does it list as the string value, layout similar to what is shown in my previous post?
|
|
|
|
|
No, I get absolutelly no reaction from the OS. Nada.
But the 4GB SanDisk works just fine.
I guess the solution is to put 2GB in the round file.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you look in the device manager to see if there's anything that pops up? How about if you actually plug in an IDE card to the other end of the cable (or IDE HDD)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you see nothing from the OS, then there's something wrong with the hardware. As part of the USB standard, devices must identify themselves in the USB handshake process with the vendor and product IDs, that's the way the OS knows what device driver to load.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
