# HDD Upgrade Advice



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

So.. i'm trying to decide what to do for my next upgrade.
After months of analysis i've determined that well over 75% of my bottlenecks lie within the harddrive.  SystemMonitor states exclusively bottlenecks by the HDD.

At present I have a 160 GB 8MB Cache SATA Seagate
And a 640 GB 16MB WD Caviar

Which of these three would be most cost-effective bang for the buck for *ELIMINATING HDD BOTTLENECKS*.  Note that capacity is not a major concern since i'm using 25% of the 160GB (Windows, core programs, games) and 38% of the 640 GB (music, movies, porn, games)

I intend to put only the most intensive stuff (Windows, Software, Fallout3) on this new drive, most software and high-performance games (Non-constant, non-performance software, Second Life, Oblivion) on the 160 GB I use now, and continue to use the 640GB for long-term storage.  All I really need is 24 GB for the windows drive.

I'm leaning towards the SSD or the Velociraptor but i'm unsure which would provide the best bang as my windows drive.  I would assume SSD, but i'm takin' opinions.



CHOICES:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136320  $69.99 / 500GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025  $129.99 / 40 GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136296  $159.99 / 150 GB


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

Well... For eliminating *bottlenecks*, item #2 outperforms the others. But... Uh... Why? The hard drive is likely not a big bottleneck, and frankly, a 640GB WD Caviar Black will be pretty much as fast as you'd need. For that matter, there won't be major performance differences anyway unless your 160GB is 5400RPM or something, or is dying.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

The HDD is in fact the primary bottleneck.  Of times the computer is stuck in a wait state, over 75% of them are HDD related.  And the wait is considerable.
For example, after booting to desktop, the system spends nearly 3 minutes straight waiting for the HDD before returning to happyness, while memory I/O and CPU usage both hover below 5%.  That's some considerable lopsidedness, there.

On top of that, the CPU averages 3% usage on a daily basis, RAM at 27%, and HDD 87%.  Again, noticeable lopsiding here.

And the HDD_Busy state is called quite high, quite often as tasks remain pending for as long as 69863 milliseconds (as of the last 3 days).  That's over an entire minute that the system was waiting on the harddrives to catch up.


This is not an arbitrary decision.  I've watched the system closely and ensured that the bottleneck is, in fact, the harddrive.  And while the best option would be simply a RAID array, I don't have the money to put into that at this time.  $150 is about my spending limit.


CPU:  3.2 GHz AMD Phenom II X3 720 BB
RAM:  1181 MHz DDR2 4-5-5-15-31-2T Unganged Dual Channel
GPU:  ATI Radeon 4850 (690 MHz core, 2230 MHz VRAM) OC'd


----------



## Rojo Hunter (Jan 27, 2010)

I agree with runefox, but it does seem that there is something wrong with your hard drive if it's acting like that.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

Okay then. Seriously, though, pretty much everyone ever has a hard drive. If you want faster access, install a ton of RAM and use a RAM disk, or go for one of those SSD's. Talking about how the system is waiting on the hard drive constantly isn't really productive.

From what you're saying, it sounds an awful lot like your hard drive may be damaged if any particular task is waiting on the hard drive for up to a minute, and frankly, if that's the case, then _any_ hard drive will be a major performance boost compared to what you have now. More than likely your 160GB drive is at least a few years old by now - And more than likely, it's developed bad sectors and general wear and tear-related issues. Grab a 640GB WD Caviar Black and you should find your performance back in line with what you'd expect. Otherwise... Well, if you REALLY want to, grab an SSD, but just remember that pretty much 99% of everyone out there are running a single drive unless they have some kind of special need to do anything different.

Also, I'd like to point out that RAID in many cases, particularly software RAID provided by most motherboards, is rather unreliable, and may in fact be slower than running separate drives due to the extra overhead. It's not recommended.

I'd also like to point out that hard disk activity percentages will necessarily be higher than CPU load and memory load mainly due to the fact that things are *always* accessing the hard drive, and it's either accessing or not - CPU load is variable between 0-100%, and is likely very usually down around 1-10% during normal usage.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

I really wish you guys would spend more time answering my question instead of arguing with me.  Windows was installed on the 640GB HDD previously.  Had the same problems then.  The HDD works fine, and is well within it's operating parameters.  Neither drive is even a year old.  No bad sectors, either.  Still under warranty, even.  SMART shows >90% fitness and performance in all areas.  In fact it's slightly above average for it's current load and age.  [92 days of power-on time.  Please note that this is the *TOTAL* accrued time spun-up and active, and doesn't include times idle, suspended, in hibernation, or off.]

The problem is that it's simply overtaxed.  The end.
I need a better harddrive that can handle the stress.  That is all.

Suggesting I buy a second HDD of the same kind I own (didn't you notice I mentioned I HAVE a 640GB Caviar black?) isn't going to alleviate the problem of it being too slow to cope.

Correction:
The 640GB IS over a year old.  It's nearly 2.

It should also be noted that software RAID isn't true RAID, so of course it won't perform similarly.  Did you not notice how I made mention of 'not being able to afford a RAID setup'?  As in, 'I cannot afford a RAID card and multiple drives.  A single-drive solution that would ease the load or perform more adequately is preferred as a partial solution.'

Finally, it should be noted that the E drive (640GB Caviar) averages 3% usage through the day, since it's just my storage drive.  Most of that is from winamp loading music, and of course, murry purry furry porn.


Please don't reply again attempting to give me a 'fundamental computer education', as I already have a very thorough one.  The question here is whether a Velociraptor or an Intel SSD would perform better (or a third HDD and simply split the softload even more).  Not what could be causing the slowdown-  that has been identified:  Doing more shit than a single harddrive is made to handle.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 27, 2010)

This thread is hilarious. o.o


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

Go with the SSD for windows and core games/apps, the one you haven now should be fine for other small apps/less used apps, files and media.

You'll notice stuff opens a little faster, windows loads a little faster, games are a little smoother...but you won't notice much. I doubt the hard drive is the bottleneck, but if you want to prove yourself right and everybody else wrong go buy a SSD. Mind you I'd check around to see which one has the fastest -read- time, you won't need write time speed.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

In the case of this drive, I won't.  I'm aware SSDs have abysmal write speeds.  But that's very much not the source of the bottlenecks, it's from pending reads.

I'm extremely confident that my observations and many monitoring tools aren't leading me astray on this bottleneck.  I'm just not sure which would do better.  Velociraptor or SSD.

The SSD is cheaper, but they tend to be hit or miss.  The Intels get excellent reviews tho.


Thanks for the advice, Newf.  That lends me one vote for SSDs.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

The raptor is better for servers, it has better i/o times, the SSD is the better choice for simply reading more so than writing.

If you're also going from not using it for long periods of time to then wanting to quickly load something that's demanding, say a large game level really quickly or windows when booting up, the SSD will out perform anything else really...if you get the right one, that one doesn't seem to bad at all.

The raptor is expensive for what you're getting, but would probably be the better choice for a server/raid array. Which isn't what you're looking for.

When/if you find it's not the bottleneck check your motherboard or ram.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

The RAM's I/Os are largely underutilized.  I could get much slower RAM and still suffer no noticeable slowdown.  I even tested that theory by underclocking it to 533 MHz from 1181.  Still got the same general performance.

Same for the CPU running at 3x1.6 GHz.  Still the HDD is the bottleneck.

GPU is only a bottleneck in games, and the only time the HDD isn't the primary.  But I don't game that often.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

Janglur said:


> The RAM's I/Os are largely underutilized.  I could get much slower RAM and still suffer no noticeable slowdown.  I even tested that theory by underclocking it to 533 MHz from 1181.  Still got the same general performance.



Yes but even if your ram is suppose to be good, it might not be. And it's also largely dependent on your motherboard, I highly doubt you have anything more than simple DDR2 1066mhz ram, which isn't -that- fast but should be more than sufficient for anything, even "hardcore" gaming. If you do have 1066 and are overclocking it to 1181 it could of damaged it.

You shouldn't overclock the ram too much, 1066 would of been fine (by overclocking the CPU I know the ram goes up as well, so you should clock the ram down to the nearest to normal (1066), for instance my ram is 1068 because I overclocked my cpu and dropped the ram clock down a peg to keep it normal.


I would bet the ram is potentially the issue here, but of course I could be dead wrong and it could be your hard drive. Either way, a SSD is beautiful for operating system and key programs, so go with it anyway.

Edit: Also if your "testing" involved FPS in a game then well, it won't really make a massive difference. Seeing as most games utilize the GPU more than anything else; I've pegged my CPU in testprime (all four cores) at 100% and popped open crysis, still getting about 45-55 FPS on the highest settings.

Edit2: If you want to test ram use a memtest. Just like if you want to test any specific part of anything you should run something that tests that part without allowing other components to potentially bypass the issues.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

Dude, I told you again and again, the 640GB Caviar Black (along with its 1TB cousin) is one of the faster drives available. I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that *most of the people on the planet run just fine with a standard hard drive and have no need for a (Veloci)raptor nor an SSD*. Hell, my system drive is an old WD 200GB IDE from back in 2004 and I'm doing everything I need to do (including gaming) just fine. If you're having extreme slowdown issues, you have a *problem* with *your hard drive* (or the *drive controller* on the motherboard).

You already have two hard drives in your system, and your system drive is overtaxed? What exactly are you doing to stress it so much? I can assure you that my drives don't thrash about and hang the system for 60secs no matter what I do - I can be copying a huge file or a number of huge files all at once, compressing MP3's, playing games, the whole shot and nothing will actually freeze like that. You absolutely do have a problem if this kind of crap is happening.

Here's the long and the short of it - You're dead set on the SSD or the Velociraptor. You're not going to listen to me or anyone else who'll tell you that you're better off with a regular drive. *So if I were you, I'd go with the SSD*. It may be a little on the cutting edge side of things, but if space really isn't that important, SSD's have virtually no seek time, meaning that if you're using it for the system drive, Windows will be very happy on it.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

Mods, can I get this thread closed?  I got my answer elsewhere.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Here's the long and the short of it - You're dead set on the SSD or the Velociraptor. You're not going to listen to me or anyone else who'll tell you that you're better off with a regular drive. *So if I were you, I'd go with the SSD*. It may be a little on the cutting edge side of things, but if space really isn't that important, SSD's have virtually no seek time, meaning that if you're using it for the system drive, Windows will be very happy on it.



I seen that and went right for "get it". lol


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes but even if your ram is suppose to be good, it might not be. And it's also largely dependent on your motherboard, I highly doubt you have anything more than simple DDR2 1066mhz ram, which isn't -that- fast but should be more than sufficient for anything, even "hardcore" gaming. If you do have 1066 and are overclocking it to 1181 it could of damaged it.
> 
> You shouldn't overclock the ram too much, 1066 would of been fine (by overclocking the CPU I know the ram goes up as well, so you should clock the ram down to the nearest to normal (1066), for instance my ram is 1068 because I overclocked my cpu and dropped the ram clock down a peg to keep it normal.
> 
> ...





As i've said repeatedly throughout the thread, and noone seems to listen, nothing in my computer is malfunctioning.

Also, the memory is DDR2-1200.  It's running underclocked because I wanted tighter timings.  Memtest (which is not actually very good at finding errors compared to alternatives) and others found no problems.  The system can maintain over a week of uptime without errors.
It's not the CPU, it's not the RAM, it's not the GPU (except in games), it's not the motherboard.  For christ's FUCKING sake, it's the harddrive.  Like i've said MORE than enough times to have you read it now.

I'm sorry if this sounds hostile, but i'm finding this deeply rediculous.

After I get the new HDD/SSD, i'll post the results as proof.  I'm skeptical that neither of the two options WON'T improve performance  Both run circles around the 640GB Caviar.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

It should be noted that some nice folks at Overclocker's Forum were able to answer my question.

A raptor has higher write by far but slightly lower read, and MUCH higher seek.
For a primarily read environment, SSD is vastly superior.  Raptors only win in RAID due to blunt force tactics of throughput.

They were kind enough to NOT question every possible program on earth for benchmarking and NOT try to talk me out of improving my computer's identified bottlenecks and overcompensate with already overpowered components, and give me some real statistics and advice.  Kudos to them.

So i'm getting the cheaper SSD.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

Janglur said:


> As i've said repeatedly throughout the thread, and noone seems to listen, nothing in my computer is malfunctioning.


Probably a classic pebkac case, if you're correct. But you're not, because HDD's aren't a bottleneck for PC's...only servers.



> Also, the memory is DDR2-1200.


Doubt that. 


> It's running underclocked because I wanted tighter timings.


lol


> Memtest (*which is not actually very good at finding errors compared to alternatives*) and others found no problems.


lol


> The system can maintain over a week of uptime without errors.


This is an achievement? Most any windows machine can do this.


> It's not the CPU, it's not the RAM, it's not the GPU (except in games), it's not the motherboard.


I know, pebkac.  


> For christ's FUCKING sake, it's the harddrive.  Like i've said MORE than enough times to have you read it now.


Unless it's damaged, no.


> I'm sorry if this sounds hostile, but i'm finding this deeply rediculous.


No it doesn't hostile at all, it's stupid.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

You were set on the SSD anyway. I did already answer your question, but thanks for playing along.

You see, the problem with what you're talking about is that *nobody without faulty hardware in some manner* (or perhaps malware) experiences those kinds of major issues. I don't take you for a moron, I'm saying that perhaps you haven't covered all your bases.

But whatever, this was like pulling teeth. If you had posted saying "What's better, SSD or Velociraptor", then you would have gotten an answer. Instead, you posted more information that ultimately led me to believe that you have a problem, which *you do*, by the way. This is why I didn't jump at the chance to answer whether the SSD or the Velociraptor was a better choice (and when a better drive than what your first option was mentioned, you went "FUCK THAT SHIT I'M GETTING AN SSD REGULAR DRIVES ARE TOO FUCKING SLOW YOU PUTZ"), and why this thread has failed.

Please be more concise in the future, and don't come crawling back if something doesn't work. I'm sure the Overclocker's forum will be happy to field your requests.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2010)

Will be funny when he goes around looking for something better than the SSD when -that's- also too slow for his needs.


----------



## yak (Jan 27, 2010)

I too have been looking for a faster I/O subsystem for my own rig. I've maxed out, within reason of course, all other parts of my PC already. However, after a week of research I was unable to find a definite, cost effective solution. 

* Raptors are great, because their rotational speed allows for much lower latency for random data reads which is what Windows and multitasking is all about. However they are loud, hot, expensive and they die a lot.
* RAID1, RAID0... In theory both of these should provide a performance boost in their own way, but testing shown that neither do, at least in a significant way. I blame the drivers.
* SSDs, are high maintenance low lifespan solutions. And expensive too. MLC drives wear down too fast and have a steady performance degradation within several months, requiring you to low level reformat them to restore the perf. back. SLC drives are unfortunately prohibitively expensive.


So I don't know really.
If anyone has a success story to share, please do.

OP, you might want to try to increase the NTFS memory cache, see if that helps.


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

Newf
Oh, you doubt it, eh?  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231283
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231201 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231271

I suppose i'm just making everything up, then.  So sorry.  I'll just toss out the past few months worth of metrics and beleive you, instead.  Do you think I should get a faster videocard to eliminate non-game load times, or maybe I should overclock the USB bus somehow?


----------



## Janglur (Jan 27, 2010)

yak said:


> I too have been looking for a faster I/O subsystem for my own rig. I've maxed out, within reason of course, all other parts of my PC already. However, after a week of research I was unable to find a definite, cost effective solution.
> 
> * Raptors are great, because their rotational speed allows for much lower latency for random data reads which is what Windows and multitasking is all about. However they are loud, hot, expensive and they die a lot.
> * RAID1, RAID0... In theory both of these should provide a performance boost in their own way, but testing shown that neither do, at least in a significant way. I blame the drivers.
> ...





THANK YOU, Yak.  It's about time someone makes themselves useful in this thread.  =/


Those are basically the points i've been looking at.  However the issue seems to be largely seek times.  So i'm still tempted to think that an SSD would come out superior.  The actual amount of data being loaded is relatively small, only a few GBs at a time.  But there's tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of files at a time.  Thus the massive backlog.  Especially during backup-and-virus-scan-time.

I'm unfamiliar with how to change NTFS memory cache.  Care to share?


Edit:
In case you're curious, it's moving metric dicktons of audio files, mostly.  Mostly samples and clippits and unfinished tracks.  Sound effects and synth fonts.  Stuff like that

Also, for the 'RAID not working', I suggest not using onboard RAID (which is lower-midgrade) or cheap $15 controllers (Which is bottom barrely) or diamond and areca controllers (also the worst).  Go straight for the $150+ goodies with onboard or addable RAM.  They're the most expensive but the only ones that live up.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

You asked for my opinion and you got it. The best costerformance solution in the list is the standard *WD Black*. I can't imagine that you're plagued by such performance issues that a WD Black is absolutely intolerable and that a Velociraptor or an SSD will instantly make everything better, but if you're that keen on it, an SSD is the most likely to provide a notable improvement in speed.

However, it's your money. Spend it how you see fit. You came into this topic with one goal in mind - To verify your idea that the SSD or Velociraptor will actually make a major difference in performance. I inferred the contrary and you went ballistic.

I'm really sorry I "haven't been helpful" to you, but quite frankly, I have no idea what your problem even is. I have given you my opinion as to what would be better over and over again and yet you feel that I'm ignoring it based on the fact that I don't feel that either of the exotic options are really suitable and that perhaps there's something you missed. Yak said precisely what I said. *You're now* saying precisely what I said. The only difference is that Yak offered you another tweak you might be able to use to squeeze more speed out of your system.


----------



## Gray Fang (Jan 27, 2010)

Well unless you have some extreme computer here it's doubtfull ya will gain much from faster HD's they only really help when opening/loading big files from HD so most of time it would be un noticable.

Raptors are great if your I/o SATA and other HD controlers are good enough too keep up. SSD needs too go abit up in price too be usefull. Oh btw Raptor drives usualy have a 5 year warranty.. I got mine replace free afther 4 years..

Anyways Atm my biggest success is 2x WD Black series 1TB drives running raid 1 that I'm using atm, by far ouperforms most normal SATA drives but not as noisy as 10k rpm ones. Only reason I dont use Raid 0 is couse I want my data safer and it donst really gain and speed boost for normal use according too most tests.

Another thing, makes sure ya got newest HD controler and chipset drivers from your mb manufacturer. And possiblt Bios updates. somethimes it can help HD performance alot.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 27, 2010)

> Well unless you have some extreme computer here


He doesn't. He's a tweaker, someone who desperately claws at their computer attempting to squeeze every last drop of performance out of it for the sake of being able to say they did. He's running a midrange processor with a midrange video card, the latter of which is overclocked very slightly (65MHz on the core, 230MHz on the RAM). He can't afford a RAID setup, and can barely afford either of the three two options he's clawing at. When questioned, he gets antsy and angry because he feels that he already has done everything and knows everything that needs to be done and that everyone should already know this without specifying any of the steps he's taken to come to the conclusion he's arrived at. In other words, it's an "ooh, shiny" moment, coupled with "gee, I wish my game loaded faster".

OP, I stand by my opinion, whether you feel it's "helpful" or not. Frankly, you asked what the best "bang for the buck" was, and I responded immediately. Go buy the SSD, post the benchmarks, whatever - The fact remains that *pretty much everyone runs a standard drive and the world doesn't grind to a halt whenever it's accessed* and that spending the extra for supposedly high-performance, niche-market hardware that isn't expected to last nor provide even a 50% improvement in overall speed for over 200% of the cost is *plain silly especially on a system like yours*.

Though I'm sure you'll figure that out eventually. With that, though, I'm done here - This topic is long over.


----------



## Carenath (Jan 27, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> This thread is hilarious. o.o


So is your post /sarcasm



NewfDraggie said:


> Probably a classic pebkac case, if you're correct. But you're not, because HDD's aren't a bottleneck for PC's...only servers.
> 
> <snip>


For once I have to agree with you.

Thread closed on OP request.


----------

