JaronOdele
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
JaronOdele's Achievements
-
That makes no sense. The purpose of Hibernate is to preserve the previous session without drawing /relying on power like sleep mode does. If it's not drawing power, none of the components should be able to perform the processing necessary to wake the system, because they have no power to do so. The power button should be the only thing able to turn the system back on. : /
-
I just don't see how the computer is turning back on from a completely powered down state. Wake timers should only work if I'm sleeping, but I'm hibernating, which is a complete shutdown after dumping RAM onto the hard disk.
-
I hibernated my computer again and let it wake back up, then ran the command. Got this returned. Wake History Count - 1 Wake History [0] Wake Source Count - 0
-
Just now tested, and it did not work. It was all of three, maybe four, minutes before it turned back on as if it were waking from sleep mode. : (
-
I get to Winlogon, but then it's not the same as what you shared. I've got AlternateShells, AutoLogonChecked, GPExtensions, UserDefaults, and VolatileUserMgrKey. EDIT: Nevermind, I figured out that PowerdownAfterShutdown isn't a further folder to drill down into. That said, it's currently 0, I'm changing it to 1 then?
-
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be a Command Prompt thing? Or am I just clueless? I got an error stating "The system cannot find the path specified.". I double checked to make sure I spelled everything right.
-
I'm hibernating it, not sleeping it. It should not be able to turn itself back on from a shut down.
-
As far as I'm aware, this shouldn't be possible. I enabled Hibernation in the power settings and made the option show up in my power menu. But for some ungodly reason, it's waking up after only a few moments. My understanding is that Hibernation saves what's on RAM onto the HD, and then completely powers off as opposed to sleep where it simply enters a low-power state, so this should be impossible. Any ideas what the problem here could be? It's a brand spanking new computer built from the ground up personally, so there's no bloatware or anything. It's a gaming rig so the only things it's got on it are Speccy, my motherboard's program suite (Aorus X570 Master), my disk drive's suite (Asus BW-16D1HT), Opera GX, the Razer suite to go with my Deathadder, and various launchers like Steam and U-Play. So, not exactly any funny business going on program wise. I can provide any further information that may be needed as it's needed.
-
I wasn't looking to upgrade my existing 1TB NVME, rather I was wanting to put my games on a separate drive/array (With the main, existing drive serving as the seat of my OS and misc files as well as anything that, for reasons that I cannot comprehend, "ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ON THE MAIN DRIVE HURR DURR!!".) and was wondering what that setup should be. But you covered everything excellently. Between what you offered and WereCatf pointing out that RAID is always going to be higher latency, this question is solved. Thank you to both of you.
-
That doesn't 'invalidate' the question, that 'solves' the question.
-
How, pray-tell, does that invalidate this thread when I originally stated I didn't plan on doing an NVME RAID in the first place? I was literally asking if I should RAID a pair of SAS drives or just stick with a single NVME. Either way, I think our back and forth has allowed me to get more or less the information I need anyways. According to that other person, the bandwidth requirements I'd need for gaming are drastically below what I'm aiming for, meaning I'd be overkilling it, and that latency is what I should focus on instead to get the performance I'm looking for. So it's looking like picking up a Firecuda 510 would do me better than spending 3 times that on a hardware RAID 0 setup.
-
Isn't a low latency pretty important though with modern gaming when it comes to load times and general performance? Someone else I brought this problem to said to avoid higher latency given I plan on using the drive solely for game data.
-
What's vague about it? NVME RAID0 supposedly sees performance loss because the limitations of the UMI (Unified Media Interface) causes some sort of conflict. Where the UMI is / is part of the Southbridge. If I knew more, I wouldn't be here asking for help.
-
Something about the DMI/UMI (Depending on whether it's Intel or AMD respectively) that the slots use not playing nicely with RAID. All stuff to do with the Southbridge.
-
Could you go into further detail then? I'd like as much information as possible on the topic before I make any decisions. As I said, most sources I've seen claim that NVME drives perform better when 'not' in a RAID configuration. What information do you have that disputes that claim?
