Board index » cppbuilder » SATA vs EIDE

2005-09-21 01:59:27 AM
cppbuilder29
Hello,
Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard
to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA
drive from an EIDE drive.
Danzer
 

Hello,
boost, but I recognized nothing, compile time of my projects is a few
seconds faster with an overall time of 3 Minutes. It seems that opening
project groups is more faster, maybe half of the time before.
Greetings,
Harald
 

"Harald Plontke" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
enough to take advantage of the SATA ?
Jonathan
 

{smallsort}

Danzer wrote:
continous transfer rate of a single disk is not high enough to take
advantage of SATA so only your burst rate may improve. If you want real
improvement consider a WD Raptor.
Eelke
 

Danzer wrote:
rather than throughput and the command protocal has no singificant
effect on those.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Andrue Cope [TeamB] wrote:
protocol
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Windows Vista supports a new disk type called Hybrid disk. It's a hard disk
loaded some memory (or flash mem) and reduce boot time to few seconds.
Gigabyte had a persistent ramdisk (PCI board) that support upto 4GB
diskspace. If you want instant disk response and had 32GB of RAM, get
Superspeed SuperVolume software to load your hdd into your RAM.
Getting fast compilation is akin to CPU power and making use of precompiled
headers. The few megabyte of files make little different with faster hdd.
Windows cached them in memory when you read them.
"Danzer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

Well, some years ago (i guess it was around 98) we had the same
discussion here. Some Guy from Borland (yes thes used to care about
their customers some time ago) told us that compile times are affected
up to 77% by disk operations.
Cheers
Gunnar
tinyabs schrieb:

significant if not majority of the users were running machines that had a 16
bit wide, 66 MHz channel for disk I/O.
now are fewer of them, each with a heavier workload. Welcome to the world
of 21st century business.
. Ed

That's was 98 using Win95/98 when 16Mb ram was alot.
"Gunnar Beushausen" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

Ed Mulroy wrote:
CPU speeds have increased much more rapidly than disk seek times. They've even
increased more rapidly than disk read speeds. I'd expect we are becoming more disk
bound, not less.
 

Hello,
at my last HD-update 3 years ago, when i changed from an old 40GB 5400 512MB
Cache Drive to a newer 120GB 7200 2MB cache (maybe 30%).
Greetings,
Harald
 

"Gunnar Beushausen" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
- Dennis
 

768MHz, 32 bit Front Side Bus vs 66 MHz, 16 bit
That's probably competitive on many machines to the increased throughput in
cpu's. Especially so if you consider how much more background/system
processing the cpu has to do these days with XP.
Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that the perceived speed of the
cpu will be the ratio of its current clock speed to what the speed was back
then.
I just don't think that most projects will be disk bound. Of course there
will be some, there always are some of most anything.
. Ed

4 came out in 1995.
. Ed