Hi Nick,Yes, I did see all your images - thanks!The thick plottens!I thought I would try Sandra and, after updating from version XI to the latest version XII (208.5.14.24), I ran the File Systems benchmark and got the following result:SiSoftware SandraBenchmark Results ( On Partition C: ) Drive Index : 67.40MB/sResults Interpretation : Higher index values are better.Random Access Time : 7msResults Interpretation : Lower index values are better.Performance Test StatusRun ID : WDC WD5000AAKS-65YGA 500GB (SATA300, 3.5", 7200rpm, NCQ, 16MB Cache)Platform Compliance : x86System Timer : 3.58MHzOperating System Disk Cache Used : NoUse Overlapped I/O : YesI/O Queue Depth : 4 request(s)Test File Size : 2GBFile Fragments : 1Block Size : 1MBDetailed Benchmark ResultsBuffered Read : 136.28MB/sSequential Read : 78.07MB/sRandom Read : 49.81MB/sBuffered Write : 89.5MB/sSequential Write : 77.85MB/sRandom Write : 58.07MB/sRandom Access Time : 7msDriveDrive Type : Hard DiskTotal Size : 20.93GBFree Space : 8.30GB, 40%Cluster Size : 4kBPhysical DiskManufacturer : WDC WD50Model : 00AAKS-65YGA Version : 12.0Interface : SATARotational Speed : 7200rpmRemovable Drive : NoQueueing On : YesAs you can see, the Random Access Time is now being reported as 7ms which is in line with what this drive should be achieving. I compared with the same drive in Sandra's database and my drive appears to be performing slightly better than their reference drive.Is it possible that the erroneous results shown in the other benchmark programs for Random Access Time were in some way attributable to the fact that my SATA2 drive is divided into 2 partitions (C: 20GB and D: the rest of the 500GB drive) or is this a red herring?Still doesn't explain why my Hitachi (ATA-133) appears to be showing better average read performance than the Western Digital (SATA2).Regards,Mike

It looks to me like the WD drive is running fine.. another reason to stay clear of HDTach. As I mentioned I will look at random access in HDTach but usually only use it to verify CPU use.Post the same Sandra benchmark results for the Hitachi you did for the WD aboveJust because a drive is ATA133 does not mean it will be slower. It depends on a few different factors although SATA2 should top it in a few critical areas.. read speeds are not always the best way to judge a drive.

You're right, I was getting off topic. I apologize Mike. I'll start a new thread.Ted

and just so you are aware Mike, its the latency, rotation speed and Random Read and Write that makes the differenceRarely does Sequential Read make any difference unless you are running a A/V production tower, and, Buffered results are the theory, not the actual. The buffer to disk speed is NEVER what you get in reality with file reads unless you open the flood gates by applying the drives to a professional RAID solution, which is what that type of platform takes advantage of and why you pay for it.

Hi Nick,"Post the same Sandra benchmark results for the Hitachi you did for the WD above"Okay, here they are:SiSoftware SandraBenchmark Results ( On Drive E: ) Drive Index : 69.56MB/sResults Interpretation : Higher index values are better.Random Access Time : 8msResults Interpretation : Lower index values are better.Performance Test StatusRun ID : Hitachi HDP725050GLAT80 500GB (ATA133, 7MB Cache)Platform Compliance : x86System Timer : 3.58MHzOperating System Disk Cache Used : NoUse Overlapped I/O : YesI/O Queue Depth : 4 request(s)Test File Size : 2GBFile Fragments : 1Block Size : 1MBDetailed Benchmark ResultsBuffered Read : 121.41MB/sSequential Read : 84.38MB/sRandom Read : 49.16MB/sBuffered Write : 71.95MB/sSequential Write : 75.80MB/sRandom Write : 52.88MB/sRandom Access Time : 8msDriveDrive Type : Hard DiskTotal Size : 465.75GBFree Space : 254.33GB, 55%Cluster Size : 4kBPhysical DiskModel : Hitachi HDP725050GLAT80Version : GM4OA42AInterface : ATARemovable Drive : NoQueueing On : NoAND...just to complete this exercise, here are the results when I benched partition D: on my Western Digital SATA2 drive:SiSoftware SandraBenchmark Results ( on partition D: )Drive Index : 64.89MB/sResults Interpretation : Higher index values are better.Random Access Time : 7msResults Interpretation : Lower index values are better.Performance Test StatusRun ID : WDC WD5000AAKS-65YGA 500GB (SATA300, 3.5", 7200rpm, NCQ, 16MB Cache)Platform Compliance : x86System Timer : 3.58MHzOperating System Disk Cache Used : NoUse Overlapped I/O : YesI/O Queue Depth : 4 request(s)Test File Size : 2GBFile Fragments : 1Block Size : 1MBDetailed Benchmark ResultsBuffered Read : 136.45MB/sSequential Read : 74.75MB/sRandom Read : 48.52MB/sBuffered Write : 89.05MB/sSequential Write : 74.49MB/sRandom Write : 56.86MB/sRandom Access Time : 7msDriveDrive Type : Hard DiskTotal Size : 444.83GBFree Space : 312.69GB, 70%Cluster Size : 4kBPhysical DiskManufacturer : WDC WD50Model : 00AAKS-65YGA Version : 12.0Interface : SATARotational Speed : 7200rpmRemovable Drive : NoQueueing On : YesRegards,Mike

But I do want to point out that use of O&O as I laid out is converting Windows, FSX or MSFS to a partially SEQUENTIAL READ system and now perhaps you see why there is an advantage to using it over other defrag software. When your disk accesses after a correctly set up O&O system its moving from being a completely RANDOM ACCESS system (slower disk performance) to a SEQUENTIAL ACCESS system (faster disk performance) and as such the numbers you see in the benchmark software for Sequential READ then become USED by the systemjust because a benchmark says you are getting 80MB/s in a sequential read does not mean your system is that fast unless it is SET UP to allow for sequential read of filesI will look at the compare of the drives and post back

OK, I see a few things that can make a difference.. first of all, running a benchmark on a partitioned drive can produce a skewed result although they should still be close you can see differences that wayYour SATA drive has NCQ enabled. Queueing On : YesThat is overhead which is not necessary unless you are running a network server and on many systems, depending on the BIOS and other factors, the performace loss far outweighs any benefit of NCQ use.The drive may also have internal settings for performance/accoustic management that I can not tell from these reading is or is not available/enabledGood ATA133 drives compared to SATA2 is not uncommon to see the BS the drive manufactures put out there for performance and I think thats another factor here. The Hitachi has a higher latency than the WD although not significantly higher.WD -HTchDetailed Benchmark ResultsBuffered Read : 136.28MB/s - 121.41MB/sSequential Read : 78.07MB/s - 84.38MB/sRandom Read : 49.81MB/s - 49.16MB/s 80.28MB/sBuffered Write : 88.26MB/sSequential Write : 157.38MB/sRandom Write : 107.97MB/sRandom Access Time : 6ms

and one last item.. the buffer size on the drive will also make a huge difference. Since the Hatachi has less than 1/2 the buffer that will also make the drive SLOWER IN REAL WORLD USE. there is also no RPM spec listed in the Sandra report for the Hatachi and I would need to go back and look it up. If is not equal to the WD then again, a very distinct REAL WORLD loss in performance will be seen regardless of the numbers in a benchmark testBenchmarks are numbers.. unless you know how to read them and apply them to how you have your storage system set up, they can be VERY misleading. Drive/hardware manufactures prey on that and the general public.

Hi Nick,This has all been extremely useful info and I thank you again for the time and care you have taken to respond with such clarity.I do feel reassured now that my drives are working as well as can be expected in the system environment where they are presently installed.The points you have pressed home regarding partitioning and performance are understood and accepted. However, any changes will now have to wait for the next major upgrade as the effort involved would be just too great and I am VERY reluctant to risk the loss of a rock solid stable system. My FS9 installation is huge and FSX is fast catching up. However, my system also caters for ALL my computing requirements which are quite diverse and far ranging. I can't afford to devote a drive to one sim although I know that by doing so I'm shooting myself in the foot performance-wise. Keeping the O/S on a small partition away from the enormous reservoir of programs has, for me, many benefits not the least of which is the ability to carry out routine defrag operations quickly. Also, if anything goes wrong, as it did recently with my brief flirtation with O&O, the restoration of a 20GB partition is both quick and easy to perform.We all have different needs and, for the forseeable future, despite the downsides, my current configuration works well for me. Next time I will certainly be referring again to all your great advice and guidance and, who knows, I may choose to take a different route when the opportunity to do so presents itself."But I do want to point out that use of O&O as I laid out is converting Windows, FSX or MSFS to a partially SEQUENTIAL READ system and now perhaps you see why there is an advantage to using it over other defrag software. When your disk accesses after a correctly set up O&O system its moving from being a completely RANDOM ACCESS system (slower disk performance) to a SEQUENTIAL ACCESS system (faster disk performance) and as such the numbers you see in the benchmark software for Sequential READ then become USED by the system."Yes, this does makes complete sense. However, this does beg the following question:If drives like mine have NOT been optimized by O&O (COMPLETE/NAME) then doesn't it make more sense to leave NCQ (Native Command Queuing) enabled on the SATA drive since Random Access is still the order of the day?I looked it up:http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/315Quote: "Command Queuing features improve the performance of the hard disk drive when the PC sends a series of commands to read sectors distant from each other. The hard disk drive takes these commands and reorders them, in order to read the maximum possible data at just one rotation of the disc. NCQ can deal with up to 32 commands at a time."Regards,Mike

NOPENCQ is great for file servers and bad for game systemsthats all there is to itIts a feature that has been added and is being presented as a all around good thing to have.. that is not the case. A network file server does not need to perform like a game system. The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain - James Doohan (Scotty)

Soooo.....how do I go about disabling NCQ on my Western Digital drive?I can find no reference in the System BIOS Setup.Mike

If there is nothing in the ASRock BIOS (does not surprise me) you dont have access to it unless the manufacture utility disk provides such things directly to the BIOS of the drive.Also, I am remembering something about the spec in reference to full NCQ ability, whereby Windows must be installed with the feature enabled in the BIOS with full BIOS support for HCQ, or you don't get the full advantages NCQ may provide in a file server environment. I need to look that one up again because its been a while since I touched base on NCQ and Windows. Check your motherboard manual and see if it makes any reference to NCQ and SATA settings. Sometimes they do not call it "NCQ" they can call in "Queing" or "AHCI"

Hi Nick,The only thing I can find is listed under Properties for the WDC WD50 00AAKS-65YGA SCSI Disk Device in Device Manager:Under the 'SCSI Properties' tab there are 2 options, both of which appear to be accessible (i.e. I can place check marks):- Disable tagged queuing- Disable synchronous transfersAny relevance to this discussion?MikeEdit: I've just remembered that there is a SATAII Operation Mode option in the BIOS which can be switched to IDE. Would this be worth trying and, by so doing, would it turn off 'NCQ'?

negativeIt will be in the BIOS listed as the SATA controller type.. RAID/IDE or AHCI you would switch the drive to IDE from AHCI to disable NCQ features if the BIOS does not supply an individual disable for COMMAND QUE or NCQIDE on the SATA does not mean you are changing it to a EIDE drive type.. it just means the higher functions are being disabledyou may not have any of that available with the ASrock board... if so, there is nothing you can do.

Ah well, not to worry.At least now I know and knowledge is power! Maybe next time...Back to reality and enjoying what I have...which, actually, ain't half bad when all is said and done.Perhaps it's as well we aren't neighbours - I would never be able to rest and be content..LOL!Thanks again for your excellent contribution to this thread. My knowledge base is expanding nicely and I do appreciate your willingness to give up your time to help.Regards,Mike :)