Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

aparman

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About aparman

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Thanks for your reply. 2nd drive was added less than about 7 months ago, about a month after the first drive replaced an older drive. I have tried the reinstall controller trick, and DMA is set to UDMA 5 for both (it was set to PIO for my DVD, and reinstall of its controller has reset the DMA to UDMA 2). Cables to both drives are identical, and just as old as the drives, but I can't rule out a bad cable. MOBO has 2 main SATA connection points, right next to each other and easily accessible. I can see six hard drive positions in the bios, but I'll have to open the box to find other connection points. I'm curious if the Speccy reading of 3.0 gb/s (= SATA/300 doesn't it?) for both drives is correct, and the Defraggler health reading of SATA/600 (=6.0 Gb/s, yes?) for one drive is incorrect. Part of the question here is whether I have a drive working slower than possible, or if one or the other, Defraggler/Speccy, is wrong in its assessment of one of these drives.
  2. Fastest part of the disk. Reads from the pagefile are one of the slowest access parts of I/O aren't they?
  3. Title says it all. An old Norton defragger used to have this. Would love to have the page file on the fastest part of the drive.
  4. I have a question about the Drive Health report in Defraggler versus what I see in Speccy. I have XP Pro SP3, and two identical WD Caviar Black SATA hard drives. I believe both are configured and wired exactly the same (to two different but equivalent MOBO connectors). Defraggler reports the first with "Transfer Mode: SATA/600" and the second as "Transfer Mode: SATA/300". Speccy reports both drives as "SATA-II 3.0 Gb/s". Computer is a Dell Optiplex GX620. Hard drives are WD 5001AALS. I am curious as to why the two are reported with different transfer rates in Defraggler. Would love to have both up to 6.0 Gb/s, if the reading from Defraglgler on the first is correct.
×
×
  • Create New...