Show Us Your WEI

[ExNavy11]

The test itself must be wrong then because 6.9 is what it says on my PC. The only difference being that it doesn't show that my CPU is Overclocked @3.0Ghz

What type of hard drive do you have to get that 7.2 score? I have a new hdd and its only 5.9

 

[DJG]

SSDs have a significant performance advantage so they need to leave headroom for them. Hell, my 4-spindle mechanical RAID 0 barely rates a 6.5 .

 

[Spredas]

Em.. Updated few drivers, and I like my new results

It could be better, but dont have ideas why "Desktop performance for Windows Aero" is so low, only 3.5 When gaming graphics is 5.1..
Maybe I missed something? Any sugestions how can I improve that?
My system specs:
Acer Aspire 7720G (Laptop)
*Intel Core 2 Duo procesor T5750 (2GHz, 667 Mhz, 2mb cache L2 cache)
* Geforce 9300M G
* 3 GB DDR2
* 250 GB HDD

Waiting for your answers, u can PM me too if u like

 

[ikilledkenny]

I installed Vista on my computer. I got a 3.1. Goodness!!

P.S. BucSox, hate your avatar. No big deal, its your opinion.

 

[ciphernemo]

P.S. BucSox, hate your avatar. No big deal, its your opinion.

I love his avatar, lol. But I wouldn't put any political thing for my avatar any ways because I'd end up pissing off people, lol. And I would expect the same from others too. So, yes, I could see his avatar being a bit offensive to Obama supporters.

 

[ExNavy11]

I love his avatar, lol. But I wouldn't put any political thing for my avatar any ways because I'd end up pissing off people, lol. And I would expect the same from others too. So, yes, I could see his avatar being a bit offensive to Obama supporters.

You're right. I should change it. No need for it on these forums, I just felt strongly about it before and wanted to send a message to anyone I could that Im one of the few that feel this way. That mentality doesnt belong here and should be checked at the door. Im at work now and Ill change it when I get another moment.

 

[Thenight]

wee... new gpu, much better then the 8500gt i had before.

 

[Charbroil57]

Yes, what a new processor and mobo will do...

Finally got my AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition and Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P Motherboard in and to my surprise the mobo was too big for the HP Pavilion case. I ended up pulling out the Antec Sonata case I had put away, gutted it and started from scratch putting together a new system with SATA 500GB HDD, 2x SATA Lightscribe Optical drives, 4x 2GB DDR2 800MB Corsair modules (8GB), PCIe BFG 512MB GDDR3 9600GT OC video card. Hooked everything up, fired it up into BIOS inserted Windows 7 7232 x64 in the DVD drive, clean installed and reinstalled everything and BOY!!! this thing is fast. I was tickled to death... My WEI went up also:

​

 

[DJG]

I'm even running a slightly older version of it, 8.7.

You mentioned "write caching" (ie: from the device manager) which is different from "write-back cache". Make sure you right click on the RAID volume in your Intel Matrix Storage Console and choose to enable the "write-back cache".

I was being generic - I turned off all of it, write caching in dev mgr and write-back caching in the Storage Mgr.. Sorry, should've been more clear.

Edit: I should also mention it increased the WEI, not the performance! Write-back cache enabled will often double your disk write speed, at the expense of being succeptible to corrupting your filesystem if you lose power or crash the system suddenly - battery backup / UPS recommended.

Here's my current WEI, with system disk now a 4-spindle RAID 0 instead of RAID 10 array.

 

[ciphernemo]

Edit: I should also mention it increased the WEI, not the performance! Write-back cache enabled will often double your disk write speed, at the expense of being succeptible to corrupting your filesystem if you lose power or crash the system suddenly - battery backup / UPS recommended.

Write-back caching doesn't necessarily cause loss of data. It's different that the write buffer clearing options in the device manager.

 

[Antman]

A little history, courtesy of TechNet. To help you wrap your head around it, Snakefoot has this to say. Ubernerds, anyone? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Failed writes of cached writes is indeed a cause of corrupted or lost data.

 

[ciphernemo]

Failed writes of cached writes is indeed a cause of corrupted or lost data.

Thanks for including this link: Write Back Cache Experiments

That was a nice read and very informative. But VERY dated being written/done in 2003. In the 90s and even up to early 21st century, write-back caching was frowned upon because the controller chip technology wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today. Also, they're using EXT3 and other Linux file allocation methods and older ATA (IDE) drives, not NTFS or anything on the Windows side with newer SATA drives.

Let's not confuse write-back caching with disabling the write buffer flushing which is what that "advanced" mode or last checkmark box in Windows 7 is about. The two are a little different.

Yes, it is possible to lose and corrupt data with write-back caching enabled, but it's also possible to lose and corrupt data if your HDD or SSD is writing when it loses power, regardless of its cache state or operational mode. There is hardly any additional risk in using write-back caching these days (it is nominal).

In fact, for larger files, write-back caching will speed up writing and reading to/from a disk, lessening the risk. In smaller files, the overhead for working with the buffer is greater, and therefore it takes roughly the same time. With lots of reads and writes being queued up in the buffer (ie: when an application is loading and a log is being written), then having write-back caching is a little more risk.

Write-back itself means the data is flagged as being written to the drive even if it's still in the cache. But the cache is often flushed regularly and very quickly when the read/write demmand on the drive or drive array is low. There is actually a lower risk of data corruption (file partially written before a power loss or crash) with write-back caching because the write from a buffer occurs faster than a write-through transaction. But there is a higher risk of data loss (losing a files completely due to a power loss or crash).

If we Google it, you'll find advocates for both enabling it and disabling it. I only enable it when I'm gaming (reading files more than writing them) and disable it when I'm doing any real work. But regardless, the risk of data corruption and loss is there regardless of whether you enable it or not.

Either way, I always run on a UPS, but an O/S can still crash hard and lose data.

 

[ikilledkenny]

O/S can still crash hard and lose data.

Tell me about it

 

[DJG]

Write-back caching doesn't necessarily cause loss of data. It's different that the write buffer clearing options in the device manager.

Indeed - it just makes you more succeptible, how much more depends on your hardware & configuration. Pressing the reset button during write operations can also frappe your filesystem good, but not necessarily .

Edit: too much coffee ...

 

[ciphernemo]

Indeed - it just makes you more succeptible, how much more depends on your hardware & configuration. Pressing the reset button during write operations can also frappe your filesystem good, but not necessarily .

Yup, very true.

Edit: too much coffee ...

Totally NOT TRUE!!! Wei canz neber hab too mutz coffeeeeee! *is a coffee addict*

 

[DJG]

Yup, very true.



Totally NOT TRUE!!! Wei canz neber hab too mutz coffeeeeee! *is a coffee addict*

No, not addict, the proper term is "professional coffee consumer"

 

[noir7559]

mine

 

[ciphernemo]

No, not addict, the proper term is "professional coffee consumer"

Oh. I have to remember to use that term!

 

[Antman]

...That was a nice read and very informative...

As was your post. In fact, of all the isolated banter in these threads, this is my favorite. Not because of it's subject matter, but because of it's form and content. If only we were all sitting about the conference room and learning together.

...But VERY dated being written/done in 2003...

There is little if anything outdated in computer science. Babbage's work in mechanical computing will soon come full circle. See Kruglick, E.J.J.: Microrelay design, performance, and systems

 

[ciphernemo]

There is little if anything outdated in computer science. Babbage's work in mechanical computing will soon come full circle. See Kruglick, E.J.J.: Microrelay design, performance, and systems

There is quite a bit of truth in that statement. Principles remain the same even if their application evolves. And even future technology is based on past principles: things are still governed by them same set of physics (even if we don't know the full extent of this 'set' yet).

What we're discussing here is a principle that hasn't changed.

What I mean by outdated is that it has evolved to the point of exponentially diminishing risk. Unfortunately, that risk never reaches zero, so yes, the principles are still the same. At least they'll be the same until the next technological architecture level, and even that may or may not eliminate risk of some caching methods.

For SSDs, I envision a controller and memory (buffer) chip that can keep itself powered long enough to flush its own cache in the event of power loss.