Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Informative
    mancesco reacted to Tabs in VERY slow writing speed to external HDD   
    Unfortunately not, it's an intrinsic way that file systems work. For every file that is copied, an entry needs to be made in the file systems "file allocation table". Non-Windows filesystems use them as well, but they have different names and structures. For NTFS, it's called the Master File Table, or MFT.
    The basic performance problem with the type of transfer you're doing, is that because each and every file is small and separate, each file needs corresponding MFT entries. Before a new file is copied, the MFT for the previous one needs to be made - and since the MFT is in the centre of the disk, it means that your drive is writing a file, then moving to the middle of the disk to write the MFT entry, and then moving back to copy another. Therefore, each copy involves new seeks, and extra writes, and those are all terrible for hard drive performance - hard drives like writing to one place for a long time, and they can do that kind of work well. But ask them to jump all over the place and the nature of a spinning disk becomes very apparent - it takes a relatively long time to re-seek on a hard drive - 8-15ms - so if you add 16-30ms per file on top of the time taken to actually do the writes, you can see why your average data rate is so low.
    The reason things are done this way is that it's needed to ensure that when you go to X:\somefolder, you can quickly get a file listing of what is in X:\somefolder (it's pulled from the MFT). The disk itself doesn't care where a file physically is on the drive; only your OS needs to care about that so that when you go to X:\somefolder\somefile.jpg, the MFT points to the physical location of that file on the disk.
    Sorry if this is a very long-winded explanation. The reason zipping up your files before copying would work, is that the filesystem doesn't need to know whats *inside* a compressed file - only where the compressed file itself is. So if you split your 32000 files into 8 compressed archives of 4000 each, you'd reduce the number of MFT entries (and costly seek/write/re-seek operations) down from 32000 to 8.
  2. Informative
    mancesco reacted to Tabs in VERY slow writing speed to external HDD   
    For comparison, here is a 7200RPM desktop (3.5") hard drive performing purely random reads and writes. This is better than you can expect from a fully random workload on your disk, because no MFT seeks are used during this process. This is a 2TB Seagate ST2000DM001 drive.
    This is the performance of an old non-NVME m.2 drive using PCI express.
    And finally, a representative example of a good usb 3 flash drive - this is a Kingston Hyperx Savage.
    Basically, you can expect fully random performance on your 2.5" external hard disk to be roughly the same as my first image, or possibly a little worse. It's just a weakness of spinning drives.
    So long as you know about this limitation though, you can offset it. If you zip up your files before copying them, you'll get dramatically higher speeds since then the disk will be doing sequential, rather than random, writes. Any good archival program will allow you to extract individual files form an archive, although this isn't useful if you need metadata or search functionality.
  3. Like
    mancesco got a reaction from kameshss in Screen goes black randomly   
    I didn't install any new software since this issue appeared, nor I have anything running in the background that is related to my graphics; also this happens even when I'm not touching the keyboard so it can't be related to the keys. I'm not sure I understand the monitor question, but I only have one plugged and the cable is sitting properly.
    Sleep mode and screensaver are both off.
    I'll try this one, hopefully that will solve it.
  4. Like
    mancesco reacted to Atmos in Aftermarket cooler for reference GTX 980   
    G10 bracket and a TT water 3.0 performer or a Corsair H60 will get the job done.
    If you're feeling frisky, then a G10 bracket and a TT Water 3.0 Ultimate or Corsair H100igt can sure as heck do a damned good job cooling the card.
  5. Like
    mancesco reacted to Faceman in Aftermarket cooler for reference GTX 980   
    NZXT G10 + Corsair H55.
    I'm also going to recommend some thermal pads and heatsinks to keep the VRM temps down.  You could also consider buying a more powerful 92mm fan if you are really worried, but you said you won't be overclocking, so none of this is necessary, but I would much rather you air on the side of caution with a $550 GPU.
  6. Like
    mancesco reacted to 1Scotty1 in GTX 980 reference vs GTX 970 non-reference   
    Surely, if the price difference is that small, go for the 980. As I said, here it is almost double the price, that is a lot and I am far better of with my two 970s in SLI
  7. Like
    mancesco reacted to kpreg in New monitor for video editing and gaming (max 400USD budget)   
    Ultrawide. The level of productivity you can achieve with it is amazing.
  8. Like
    mancesco reacted to Suffokation in New monitor for video editing and gaming (max 400USD budget)