June 24, 20233 yr Has anybody noticed that Windows NT 6.1 (2008 R2 x64) has a slower hard disk access compared to Windows 2003 (XP)? I have a dual boot configuration on the same computer and I notice a curious difference. When I open an image in IrfanView for the first time there is a short pause. But there is an even bigger pause when updating tags of FLAC files in Foobar2000. FLAC files contain a reserved space and only one or two disk clusters need to be written to update a tag. But if I queue an update to a hundred files, it takes around 2 seconds. On Windows 2003 the operation completes almost instantly. The difference reminds me when back in DOS SmartDrv wasn't loaded. Not as dramatic, but significant. Does Windows 2003 (XP) do the disk writes in the background after returning immediately, and Windows 2008 does not do it for some safety reason? The settings in Device Manager are default: Removal policy: Better performance (default) Enable write caching on the device: Yes. Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing on this device: No (this is new)
June 27, 20233 yr Of course I noticed! Your HDD is just showing off its age, windows 7 [2008 R2] is known to be brutal on HDD. With anything after Vista, tear and wear happens much faster! Now we wait for SSD supporters to tell us how good windows 7 will perform with an SDD from the year 2023.
June 28, 20233 yr Author The OS doesn't read from the disk excessively during times when I'm using it. The system disk is separate and an SSD and the data disks are separate. The disk cache seems to be less effective. The disks are the same under both operating systems.
June 28, 20233 yr On 6/24/2023 at 3:06 PM, j7n said: Enable write caching on the device: Yes. Did you try? Enable write caching on the device: No.
June 28, 20233 yr On 6/24/2023 at 3:06 PM, j7n said: Has anybody noticed that Windows NT 6.1 (2008 R2 x64) has a slower hard disk access compared to Windows 2003 (XP)? It's the way how their kernel is written, not much you can do about it, unfortunately! I travelled through a million of light years, trying to speed it up, Xp/Vista would still be faster with HDD.
June 30, 20233 yr Author Unchecking "Enable write caching on the device" didn't change the speed appreciably. I expect the speed to be even slower. Checking "Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing on the device" sped the disk up dramatically! There is a strong warning under the option. Is there an additional risk of data loss on top of Windows XP, which doesn't have a comparable option?
June 30, 20233 yr If you run a UPS, then no. And no worries for the already written files, even without it! The worst that might happen is a damaged file which was wrtitten when the outage happened, and only under some certain circumstances!
July 3, 20233 yr On 6/29/2023 at 9:02 PM, Dixel said: If you run a UPS, then no. And no worries for the already written files, even without it! The worst that might happen is a damaged file which was wrtitten when the outage happened, and only under some certain circumstances! Yes,. just delete that file and re-write again, when the power is back! Nothing to worry about.
July 3, 20233 yr Author On 7/2/2023 at 2:14 AM, Dixel said: So solved then? Glad to be of help. Yes, disks is fast now as they should be. I wonder why Microsoft would return to a more conservative caching method after XP, in a server system in particular, which has to be fast and expected to powered on all the time. I don't have an UPS. It cooked last summer. I didn't realize how hot the device gets inside as the battery ages.
July 3, 20233 yr 7 hours ago, j7n said: I wonder why Microsoft would return to a more conservative caching method after XP Obvious, to sell SSD. Windows 7 was the booster for SSD sales.
July 3, 20233 yr On 6/30/2023 at 2:06 AM, j7n said: Checking "Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing on the device" sped the disk up dramatically! Perhaps it is disabled by default only on Server versions But even with this enabled anything newer than Vista feels slow on HDD (and Windows 10 is nearly unusable). This setting is also present in Vista so there are definitely more factors that make HDD run slower on new Windows versions. Edited July 3, 20233 yr by TSNH
July 3, 20233 yr 3 hours ago, TSNH said: This setting is also present in Vista Yes, but I don't notice any real world difference on either of my 8TB drives with Vista. It's fast regardless of the setting.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now