Inspiron 9300 cd drive performance

well, i put arch linux on my laptop last week. its one with ide drives, not sata. dell never officially doc'd a difference between the two and put out very few with sata in them. i worked for them so i had the inside info on that, lol.
anyway, basically, since i've had it, i've always had issues with the cd/dvd drive performance, some bios issue and no option in the bios to force it to work properly, anyway, im not the only one who's had that problem
but since day one, with windows xp on it, never got the drive to read or write dvds past 1.2x, for cd's its roughly 10x and the drive is rated 8x dvd and 32 or 40 for cd's
anyway, even vista never got full speed. fedora 6/7 did though, and so did ubuntu, i think they were using an ata_piix driver or something, i had read about it when i was using fedora 4 but couldnt figure out how to recompile the kernel
basically, im having the same problem here with archlinux. wondering how i could get ata_piix working or if theres something newer to replace it

Hi
I have been having same problems importing CDs , After Googling and reading various forums learnt latest version of I tunes has a glitch . Lets hope they sort it out soon and release update , What I did after reading forums was to go into I tunes , go to tabs at top FILE , EDIT etc, select preferences in drop down menu , Then you have to untick option to automatically get track names .
Put CD into CD drive , when CD appears without track details go into ADVANCED drop down menu at top ask to get track names , once they have appeared you can select import CD and it works fine , well did for me , if you go to i Lounge forum there is lot of info on it and probably wriiten clearer than I have . Good luck

Similar Messages

NVIDIA Detonator Driver Performance Database

The guys at Tweakers Asylum have built a Public nVidia Detonator Driver Performance Database used to store information on the various nVidia Detonator Drivers. They are collecting benchmark information, based on 3DMark2001 SE results for nVidia Detonator Drivers.
Public Detonator Driver Database
Take Care,
Richard

My system halts whenever I do certain applications such as Windows Media player. audio cleaning Lab 2005 deLuxe, and recordings..... it happens all the time. However, PC does not crash at other times.
I thought it was my old GeForce3 Ti200 in the first place so I changed it to GeForce4 Ti4600 and the problem is still there :(
I refreshed Win98se and downloaded updates from Microsoft. I ran memtest68, Registry mechanics, Anti-virus - all successful but still my PC crashes! By the way, my PSU is http://www.jeantech.com/Products/Power_Supply/400W/400w.html (+3.3v @ 28A, +5v @ 35A, +12v @ 17A). This is my new PSU replacing my old PSU 300W just few weeks ago. I suppose this PSU is rubbish! right?
Any suggestions here?

Looking for Hard Drive performance test software...

Just looking for a good app to check hard drive performance/health
cheers

Disk Utility, which ships with the OS. Alternatively, DiskWarrior, TechTool Pro, and many others.

Improved Hard Drive Performance...KT3U2R

I have tried the recent tweaks to get my hard drive performance up. Someone mentioned to me that the on board controllers were not the most efficient and that I should spend 30 bucks on an external controller card to DRASTICALLY improve performance. I have two 80 GB Seagate Barracuda Drives. Does this sound like a logical conclusion to you?
Dan - San Diego

Quote
Someone mentioned to me that the on board controllers were not the most efficient .........
Dan - San Diego
Ignore it. I've had and/or tested a ton of hard drives on VIA chipsets and from the KT133 on, they have all performed as well as on Intel chipsets, and in accordance with credible reviews.

Inspiron 1525 - Hard drive failure.

Dear iTunes users,
Before we begin - telling me I should've backed up my hard drive, that backing up is a must, BACK UP BACK UP BACK UP or whatever isn't helpful. You are here to help me. Saying this will only make me cry harder.
I foolishly purchased a dell inspiron 1525 a few years ago. Recently it decided it had had enough, and went as far as to freeze on the blue screen. You want to know what I was doing as my computer decided to kill itself? I was backing up my hard drive.
This mass failure could mean that I have lost both my orginal hard drive, and the back up to the external. Not only have I lost my iTunes, I have lost my photos, videos, work, EVERYTHING.
I have been googling for a while now on any computer I can get my hands on, and I have heard through the grapevine that Apple, have, on occasion given you your iTunes back to you. There is always a link to a form, which I am assuming doesn't exsist anymore - as it takes you to the support page.
To be honest, I am prepared to send apple my broken computer, my broken external - to show them. I have also considered paying the £5000 I have been quoted for hard drive recovery - which, like a portentially life saving operation on an old pet - I might not have a hard drive at the end of it.
Sadly, I do not have a new computer yet, and may not for a while as I have no money. However my younger sister has said that she is happy for me to use her macbook, in my account on it, to put my itunes in, if it is ever returned to me, at which point I will immidiately back it up to an external hard drive. I have no intention of sharing it with her - she is my sister and I don't like sharing.
I've spent a lot of money with apple, I had just bought two new albums that I was really looking foreward to listening to. I know that I am a fool, that I should have backed it up before - but if anyone could tell me if they still do this I would really be very grateful.
We all think it's not going to happen to us, but really, I have nothing left bar some songs on my Ipod - that I am tiering of. I do not want to transfer them to a computer. That is not what I am asking. I am perfectly capable of figuring that one out for myself.
I just want my stuff back, like all of the other idiots out there.
Thank you for your time,
Florence.
(for those of you who thought tl;dr, I did bold the main points for you. XD)

Hi @goshenguy
Thank you for your inquiry, I am happy to help.
I grasp you tested the hard drive from the bios and it failed. This tests the physical aspcects of the hard drive and when it fails it does require replacement. You were able to retrieve some of your files using recovery software but not all.
Your recovery partition is still intact and when you try to do a recovery with the disks from Best Buy you do not get past these options R / F / Q but will not proceed.
Here is a link to Performing an HP System Recovery (Windows XP, 2006 or Later) that may assist you in performing a recovery.
Here is a link to the Maintenance and Service Guide HP Pavilion dv6000 Notebook PC. Please note chapter 3 page 42 for a replacement hard drive part number.
HP Parts, HP Replacement Parts
If you are still unable to do the recovery, you could try contacting Best Buy for assistance with the recovery kit they provide.
I don't know if it is possible, but you may want to check cloning software to see if you could clone the D partion to the new drive or connect both drives and try a drive to drive copy of the D partition.
If you were able to successfully put the D partition on a new hard drive you should be able to do a recovery from the D partition to take it back to factory.
If none of the above has allowed you to successfully do a recovery, I suggest contacting Best Buy to see it they have options other then purchasing a third party recovery kit.
Good Luck!
Sparkles1
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the bottom right to say “Thanks” for helping!

Hard drive performance and data throughput

I am using my macbook pro for work primarily and part of that entails creating/restoring images of other macs. I've had the best luck with SuperDuper however the process is still VERY slow. For instance at this moment with no other applications open other than S.D. and firefox the copy speed is under 5MB/s from my MBP to an iMAC via fire wire.
I am looking for suggestions to increase the performance/IO in the hopes to speed up the process. When purchasing this system the 7200rpm drive was not an option (15") which is unfortunate. I realize that both hard drives in the operation will cause the variable in speed but I want the sending drive as fast as possible.
My thoughts right now are to purchase a 7200rpm external drive to store backup images and also send from. This would cut out any possible IO on the drive that my mac is performing to run the operating system. Another thought was to upgrade my mac to a 7200rpm drive and use the current 5400rpm drive as the storage for images...in the hopes that it would still provide an increase in restoration speed since it wouldn't be running OSX on it.
Any thoughts or ideas? Experiences? My MBP has the 5400rpm I believe and 2GB of ram.
Thanks

I'll try and explain a bit better. I'm not restoring
the same image to different types of macs. I create
images of OTHER macs using my macbook pro to perform
the process as well as store the backup image.
Thanks for the clarification. I do that too, but when I do I use my Mac Pro to clone a Mac via Target Disk Mode to an external FireWire 800 drive.
it helps but its a usb2 enclosure with a somewhat
older hard drive that is only 30Gb. I am looking at
purchasing a firewire 800 external drive but I will
see how this other unit works for now since we
already have it.
Part of your throughput problem may be the overhead issues with USB 2. FireWire uses its own chipset so is more independent of the CPU, and FireWire can sustain high-speed transfers at a higher level. USB is CPU-bound and is more vulnerable to CPU demands from other apps or background processes or other USB devices. So even though USB 2 has a higher theoretical peak (480Mbps), FireWire (400Mbps) actually does better in the real world.
About USB 2 vs. FireWire 400 performance
I'm not sure if FireWire 800 would help because your slowest drive in the chain may not be fast enough to take advantage.

Hard drive performance issue with DPX & MXF files

Hi everyone,
I spent hours on this forum reading articles about hardware to use for editing large files. I also have to admit, that I made some cut backs due to budge limitations.
I spent most of the money on CPU, motherboard, & ram (6 core 32 gigs , hell of nice MB) ( Video card= gtx 760 2 gig )So ok, I cheaped out on the hard drives. (I think)
I put (2) 7200 rpm drives (raid 0) as my Operating system
(1) External 8TB RAID G drive (USB 3.0 ) as my Media drive. (footage)
(2) 7200 drives (Raid 0) as my Cache Drive
I then opened up an OLD project using canon 5D footage (h264 mov) and some DPX sequence files.
The 5D fooatge played in real time BUT as soon as it ran into the DPX sequence, the frames dropped.
I wanted to cry. I just spent 1,600.00 on parts (&3000.00 pc retail if I bought it instead of building it)
And I got the same performance as my old quad core 6600/ 6 ram system. WHAT GIVES????
So, can someone recommend the cheapest workaround that can get me editing in realtime?
Do you think it's the 3.0 usb connection?
The footage I will be editing will be from the canon c300 (MXF files)
My fear is, if I am dropping frames with DPX file, what's going to happen when I get the MXF files?
Fun Facts:
I tested my OS drives, cache & media,and I was getting 290-301mb/sec READ SPEEDS
Thanks in advance !

Loucann,
I do not have the data on a three drive RAID 0 but here is a two drive RAID 0 with good Seagate ST2000DM001 drives. I have to say "good" because there have been two varieties available, some with two platters and some with three platters. The preferable are with two platters and my experience shows these drive to have an "E" in the third character of the Serial Number like Z1E1ME4V They are slightly faster than the three platter versions. Here is the HD Tune Read of the two better ST2000DM001 drives in RAID 0 on my system.
The best connection is to have all three on a RAIDable Intel SATA III connection but I am doubtfull if this can be accomplished on many motherboards, maybe Eric can comment and enlighten us.
Message was edited by: Bill Gehrke
What motherboard do you have? I guess from the info above it is a socket 2011.

Imac seagate 750gig Hard Drive performance

Ive got a new alum imac that I got about a month ago. Ive been doing some xbench benchmarks and have come to the conclusion that the internal 750 gig seagate is extremely slow. The only reason i benchmarked my mac was due to some performance issues i noticed when accessing the HD.
Comparing the results on Xbench seems to back up my results. It appears the WD 500g drive out performs the 750 by more than double the speed on most tests.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Tom
Disk Test 33.60
Sequential 95.22
Uncached Write 99.26 60.94 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 86.73 49.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 73.54 21.52 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 146.96 73.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 20.40
Uncached Write 6.38 0.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 75.05 24.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 52.28 0.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 145.46 26.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]

iTomW wrote:
Internal
WDC WD3200AAJS-40RYA0
WDC WD5000AAKS-40TMA0
Both seem to have faster uncached write times
That's strange. The WD5000AAKS should be faster than the Seagate on
large sequential reads and writes -- but only by about 10%. OTOH, the
Seagate should be about 10% faster than the WD3200AAJS.
WD doesn't specify sustained MB/s figures for either drive, so I can only
guesstimate the numbers based on Tomshardware's R/W measurements
of similar WD drives, plus WD's Mbit/s specs. (A simple divide-by-eight
doesn't work for translating from Mbit/s to MByte/s disk transfer rates.)
I'm curious as to how you're making the comparisons:
\- Are you swapping drives on the same iMac, or do you have several?
\- How full are each of the drives? Read/write speeds are fastest when
the drive is nearly empty and decreases significantly as it fills up. Data
density (bits per revolution) is highest at the outer edge of the platter.
\- What's the Seagate firmware rev? I'm aware of one firmware SNAFU
affecting some 500GB Seagate 7200.10 drives, but don't know whether
any of the 750GB models were also involved.
By the way thanks for the input
My pleasure. I'm interested in learning more about HD performance.
Looby

Selecting a boot drive for Hyper-V 2012 server - is a boot drive performance important?

I'm setting up a new Hyper-V 2012 server dedicated to virtualization and I'm trying to determine the best choice for the boot drive.
I have 2x250gb SSD drives i'm considering for storage pools for VM's
I have an old 80GB SATA drive
I'm wondering how important the primary boot drive is in a Win 2012 Hyper-V setup. I can partition one of the SSD's to provide a boot partition, or I can just dedicate the 80GB SATA.
What do you think would be a better choice?
Edit: A more precise question, why not partition the SSD for boot? Is there any benefit for separating the disks for boot vs just the partition?
Thanks,
Deco

Hello,
I hope you are having a great day!
What resources are available to you? If you have hardware RAID, it would be best to configure the SSD drives for RAID 1 (mirrored) and run everything from that. This will provide you fault tolerance in the case of a drive failure.
If hardware RAID is not available to you, then definitely use the 80GB SATA drive as the OS Boot Drive, without a hardware RAID for the OS disks you will have a single point of failure no matter what disks you use. Yes with SATA drive the system will boot
up slower :-( , but that is about the only negative.
This will also enable you to leave the SSD's as RAW un-formatted disks which can then be configured in a Storage Pool with mirroring if you wish and then have the VHD's reside there.
Absolutely, dedicate the SSD's for the placement of the Virtual Machines Config and Vhd/Vhdx Files.
For absolute best performance results use VHDX Fixed disks for maximum performance.
Dynamically expanding VHDX will have a minor almost unnoticeable performance hit (depending on the purpose of the VM) and help ensure that the amount of hard disk space the VHDX file is occupying is kept to a minimum. An example of degradation in performance
would become noticeable if for instance, the VM is being used as a file repository and users are constantly uploading files.
The bottom line is, if you don't have hardware RAID for the OS you always have a single point of failure, so hope for the best and keep great backups.

Testing Hard Drive Performance

Is there a program designed for testing memory performance on different volumes of multiple hard drives so you can compare different partition schemes, or iIf not, a real life process one could time and thus derive a comparison? For example, first test file X on volume A, then on B, then on C, and compare the times?
Thanks

*AJA KONA System Test Version 6.0.1*
A Macintosh utility for measuring system performance with AJA KONA Video Capture cards.
The application includes disk drive speed tests and Macintosh video data copy (DMA) speeds.
The disk speed tests differ from standard disk I/O performance applications in that they specifically test the system under conditions typically encountered with video capture, playback and editing.
Note: most of the disk performance tests are generic and don't require an AJA KONA Video Capture card. The DMA performance tests do require a KONA card and AJA KONA Driver software to operate. The DMA tests are not compatible with AJA Io products.
*AJA Data Rate Calculator Application Version 6.0.1*
This OS X software application calculates data rates and storage requirements for a given video size, format, and frame rate. It's great for both KONA and Io users as a resource for configuring systems and determining storage requirements.
http://www.aja.com/html/supportkona3swd.html
- I think this is more like what you, or someone doing video editing, wants to use, and even test different drive and raid configurations.

Airport Extreme Shared USB Hard Drive Performance Issues

I just picked up a new Air Extreme and attached a new Western Digital Passport via USB powered hub (have printer as well). All is working well, however, I am finding performance (especially copying files from my computer to the network HD) to be quite slow. For example, I was trying to copy a 3GB folder with about 1000 files and the copy dialog indicates that it will take about 30 hours. I was able to copy directly to the HD when plugged into computer's USB in a matter of minutes. When I try to download same folder from the net drive to my laptop, it takes about 1 hour. Note: I have Comcast Cable hi-speed so not sure how much is related to this knowing that they do have different download/upload speeds.
I would appreciate any feedback, tips and advice on optimizing performance of my USB drive when shared over the network. Thanks.

How do you have your hard drive formatted? If you are using a Western Digital Passport, you will want to create a separate Mac partition so that you can copy very large files (+4GB). By default, I believe it is FAT32. I had to do this (Mac partition) with my back up drive because I have VMWare Fusion images that easily exceed this.
The new network drive I attached is also a Western Digital, but I didn't reformat it (yet) as I knew I wasn't going to have large files, but I am wondering if maybe I should do this. Unfortunately, then my Windows machines would not be able to read it easily.

SQLServer Driver - Performance Bottleneck

hi
i'm using a type 4 SQL Server driver. The application is running on Tomcat 5.0. When I execute certain select queries, the executeQuery method is taking a lot of time. But wen the same query is executed again it works fast. But wen u modify this query and execute again it takes long time. But if the same query is executed directly using SQL Server client, it works fast and consistently.
The selectMethod used is Cursor.
Solutions and suggestions are appreciated.
Thanx,
Sandeep

Sandeep,
The Microsoft driver has big performance problems with selectMethod=cursor. All ResultSets generate cursors which then require one request/response for each row that is retrieved. However, this doesn't seem to be causing your problem since you say it works well enough with "certain select queries".
The other reason why this could be happening is Unicode vs. specific character set encodings. If strings are not sent in the same encoding as they are stored in, SQL Server will perform an index scan instead of an index seek (i.e. it won't be able to actually use the indexes and will have to do a sequential search). Most SQL Server drivers support a sendStringParametersAsUnicode parameter to specify whether strings should be sent in Unicode or the database encoding.
Alin,
The jTDS Project.

Driver performance with CLOB

Hi,
I use the "thin" driver with Apple's WebObjects and I noticed that when I do a fetch on a table with a CLOB column, it take more than one minute to get the results back when the result set is more than 500 rows. So I did some tests with SQLGrinder, a SQL tool that also uses JDBC to talk to databases, and it's the same slowdown. But if I remove the CLOB column, the fetch takes less than 3 seconds. Does Oracle's JDBC driver is know to be slow in those situations ? I use the 9.2.0.5.0 driver with a 1.4 JDK (Apple supplied on Mac OS X 10.3).

Hi,
How big is the data that is being stored in the CLOB column. Ideally in case of LOBs and BFILEs the data is read either in chunks or as streams and that needs to be separately coded. I am not sure if fetching the column directly using a select would be fast.
You can try selecting the columns other then the CLOB column and see the performance.
Here are some benchmarck results published on asktom. You might be interested in it.
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:6959536613259786285::NO::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID,F4950_P8_CRITERIA:1310802216301
Thanks,
Khalid

Filesystem and SATA drive performance

Hi you all,
I'm in the process of installing ArchLinux for the third time on my system and I'm in need for some suggestions. The previous installations went without problems but I have realized that the system was not really tuned for some video stuff I'm working with i.e that I need support for large files on my system. Did a google and found references on xfs system that should do the trick. All went ok and I could work without problems on dv files 10-13 GB in size but suddenly I've realized the abismal low performance of my harddrive when copying files e.g: 20 min for a folder of 512 MB (indeed with multiple folders and small files)!!!. The hardware I'm using is:
AMD Athlon 2500
Gigabyte GA-7VM400AMF (VIA 8237 -sata controller)
Seagate 160 GB SATA harddrive
512 MB ram
-the "hdparm -tT /dev/sda" command gives me:
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1260 MB in 2.00 seconds = 629.77 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.01 seconds = 50.43 MB/sec
-the "sdparm /dev/sda" output is:
/dev/sda: ATA ST3160827AS 3.42
Read write error recovery mode page:
AWRE 1
ARRE 1
PER 0
Caching (SBC) mode page:
WCE 1
RCD 0
Control mode page:
SWP 0
-the "sdparm -i --verbose /dev/sda" command output is:
/dev/sda: ATA ST3160827AS 3.42
PQual=0 Device_type=0x0 RMB=0 version=0x05 [SPC-3]
[AERC=0] [TrmTsk=0] NormACA=0 HiSUP=0 Resp_data_format=2
SCCS=0 ACC=0 TGPS=0 3PC=0 Protect=0 BQue=0
EncServ=0 MultiP=0 MChngr=0 [ACKREQQ=0] Addr16=0
[RelAdr=0] WBus16=0 Sync=0 Linked=0 [TranDis=0] CmdQue=0
Device identification VPD page:
Addressed logical unit:
desig_type: vendor specific [0x0], code_set: ASCII
00 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 34 4d 54 30 4MT0
10 30 47 4b 48 0GKH
desig_type: T10 vendor identification, code_set: ASCII
vendor id: ATA
vendor specific: ST3160827AS 4MT00 GKH
-I have the following partitons:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 3918 31471303+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/sda2 3919 3930 96390 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 3931 4055 1004062+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 4056 19457 123716565 83 Linux
sda1 partition is with winXP (still using win bootloader)
sda2 is /boot formatted as ReiserFs
sda3 is swap
sda4 is XFS formatted mounted as /
Now I'm preparing to reformat the whole drive, partitioning in the same manner but using JFS on the "/" partiton ....and this is what I would ask you guys:
1. Are the hdparm readings "normal" for my system? Please reply with some of yours if you have sata drives.
2. Please comment the sdparm readings (have no idea what could these be used for..)
3. The reallife test of copying files tells me that there should be a problem on my system -I mean that my vaio laptop with a PATA drive @4200rpm does better. If this is the case what could it be - hardware? sata_via drive (I would be willing to test a proprietary drive if it exists)? filesystem?
Thank you.

Your new drive may just be 'slower' than the old one. If they are both 7200RPM disks, it is likely that the older/smaller drive has a faster access time and/or transfer rate. This is not alwayst the case but it is possible.
Also, ensure that you have the latest nVidia nForce2 drivers installed. If you know the new drive should be 'as fast as' or 'faster than' the old drive, then check the settings that JeanGuy suggested, and if they are all set correctly, look into reverting your nVidia IDE driver to an earlier version.

How to test hard drive performance?

Hi, I just wanted to know how I can test my Mac’s hard-drive’s performance. I’ve used HD-Tune on Windows, but I don’t know free app that’s available for the Mac. I’ve got a MacMini mid-2011.
Thanks for any help!

See BlackMagic Disk Speed Test
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blackmagic-disk-speed-test/id425264550?mt=12

Inspiron 9300 cd drive performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for