Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 March 18

= March 18 =

Windows overhead time in creating and closing files
In my message above, I talked about how long it was taking to write files to an external HD, a seemingly large time per file. I did some tests on my computer, Windows 8, quad-core i7, 16GB RAM. None of the drives are compressed and only the C drive is indexed. THe G drive is dedicated to Carbonite Mirror Image, so there is something else accessing it. And the WD drive has to wake up if it has been idle for a while.

Drive C: internal HD 25 files of size 16777216   0.376 sec   0.01504 sec each 25 files of size 4194304    0.089 sec   0.00356 sec each 25 files of size 1048576    0.044 sec   0.00174 sec each 25 files of size  262144    0.023 sec   0.00092 sec each 25 files of size   65536    0.022 sec   0.00089 sec each 25 files of size   16384    0.020 sec   0.00081 sec each 25 files of size    4096    0.019 sec   0.00075 sec each ... Drive I: Seagate 4TB USB3 25 files of size 16777216   7.277 sec   0.29107 sec each 25 files of size 4194304    3.995 sec   0.15980 sec each 25 files of size 1048576    2.924 sec   0.11697 sec each 25 files of size  262144    2.670 sec   0.10680 sec each 25 files of size   65536    2.559 sec   0.10234 sec each 25 files of size   16384    2.967 sec   0.11869 sec each 25 files of size    4096    2.690 sec   0.10759 sec each

Notice how large the minimum time is on the Seagate. I Tabulated the overhead, based on the time to write 4KB:

Drive C internal HD           0.0007 seconds overhead Drive F WD 6TB USB3           0.0127 seconds overhead Drive G Seagate 3TB USB3      0.3614 seconds overhead Drive H 2nd internal HD       0.0008 seconds overhead Drive I Seagate 4TB USB3      0.1076 seconds overhead Drive L HP 1TB USB2           0.0128 seconds overhead

Notice how much overhead there is on the Seagates. But they are fast per MB when writing large files. Why would the time be so large on the Seagates? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And how do you get things like this to line up vertically, as they do in a text editor with fixed-width fonts? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can use the tag:


 * Or just put a space in front, like so:

WWW III
 * StuRat (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Write-back caching may be disabled on the USB drive. Try the "option two" described here. (I fixed the text alignment.) -- BenRG (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That was it!!

Drive C internal HD           0.0010 seconds overhead Drive F WD 6TB USB3           0.0008 seconds overhead Drive G Seagate 3TB USB3      0.0007 seconds overhead Drive H 2nd internal HD       0.0008 seconds overhead Drive I Seagate 4TB USB3      0.0008 seconds overhead Drive L HP 1TB USB2           0.0007 seconds overhead
 * All of the external drives had "quick removal" selected instead of "better performance". The Seagates also had the Write Cache buffer flushing on, I turned them off.  The other two externals didn't have that option.


 * When you are writing > 300,000 files, a 0.1 second overhead is a lot.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the drives are actually taking the longer times. But with write caching enabled and write cache buffer flushing disabled, Windows is telling you "it's done!" when the data is not actually on the drive yet. It does get flushed eventually (regardless of the option) but.. if you run external drives that way, make very certain that you go through the "request to remove" procedure before removing them. For the internals, be sure you do an orderly Windows shutdown, don't just power off. Otherwise you risk losing some of your writes. When they give you a choice between "optimize for performance" and "optimize for reliability", they're not kidding. Jeh (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And now copying the second internal drive to the external USB 3 drive (discussed above as "moving a large number of files") took less than 2 hours instead of the projected > 1 day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Crucial.com equivalent that recommends graphics cards for my PC ?
I apparently need a new graphics card with OpenGL 2.1 and GLSL 120 support. I'd like to run a scanner like the one at Crucial.com, and have it recommend a range of graphics cards for me. But, Crucial.com apparently doesn't do graphics cards. Is there another web site which does ? StuRat (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Every electronics site: Newegg, Amazon, the Best Buy's of the world. In your case you need to make sure 1) you have a slot that can take the card (PCI x16 I think is what most use these days but someone correct that if I'm wrong) and that you have enough space in your compact desktop, 2) that you have an extra 5V powerline coming out of your power supply. I would suggest getting a few candidates and search for benchmarks for them and compare that way to find the best price/performance tradeoff. Also, be leery of the model numbers; their performance is often not related to the series number and same series cards can vary wildly in performance. As for the standards, I assume any modern desktop card will have both, but check in case because it seems you need those. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to avoid having to dissect my computer before I get the new graphics card, to find out all that info. That's why I was hoping for software which can just scan the computer to figure all that out.  Otherwise, I either am without the computer until I get the new card, or I have to jam it back together with the old card, just to dissect it again when I get the replacement card. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * speaking from experience, definitely pay attention to the requirements of the card regarding the capacity of the power supply (in addition to the dedicated extra graphics card power cable). in my case (pretty bottom of the barrel by current standards, doesn't have the extra power cable) like a 10% shortage in the power supply rating meant the replacement card would not run at all, the next step down card which was speced for total power which the PS could deliver runs fine. Why I consider this odd/interesting, is that I assume the rest of the PC must vary in how much power it consumes, therefore for a given rated power supply, I would have assumed that given a particular power supply, the amount of spare power left over for the graphics board would vary from one pc to another, but ?? Gzuckier (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: OK, I give up on finding a scanner to do this, but, on what web site can I do the following:

1) Give it my computer model (Dell Optiplex 320 DT, compact form).

2) Give it my requirements (such as OpenGL 2.1 and GLSL 120 support, and power supply wattage and RAM limitations).

3) Get a list of matching graphics cards.

4) Compare each on price and features.

Dell's site does 1 and 3 only. Best Buy does 3 and 4 only. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would question any comparison of graphics cards on features. Such comparisons tends to be overtly simplistic. The big difference in graphics cards are in performance which you can barely tell by the feature set. Also power supply wattage doesn't tell you anything about whether or not the power supply has a spare 6 pin 12V PCI express connector (or 2 6 pin, or 1 6 pin and 1 8 pin or whatever). However your computer is very, very old and I don't think it's worth looking at anything that high powered. Your requirements thankfully are not very high. Really just go with something cheap which should also be quite low power. For example, a quick look at NewEgg shows which is many generations ahead of what you're asking for. That does have a fan, finding something passive shouldn't be too hard. (But do try to avoid something stupid, e.g. I see a Geforce 8400 going for about the same price as a HD5450 and a GT210.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I know almost nothing about graphics cards, you're going to have to tell me which of those are stupid. Also, I notice the various models have a 32-bit, 64-bit, or 128-bit bus.  Does it make any difference ? StuRat (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hard drive failed?
I just bought a new desktop to replace a 2006 laptop. I also have a Dell Dimension 8200 from 2003, that has been sitting under my desk not being used for years. Since my new desktop will be located under my desk as well, I want to remove the 8200 and put it into storage, but before putting it away I wanted to do a total backup (just in case there was anything of importance that I didn't put on my laptop in 2006). I began the backup, which proceeded fine for about 30 minutes, until the hard drive began clicking (a sort-of click of death, in groups of four, a pause, then four, pause, etc) and everything completely froze. During my many cycling attempts, sometimes it will boot into XP extremely slowly, and sometimes it will fail to boot the OS at all. Just to be sure, I took the hard drive out, cleared it of dust, then reconnected it, to no avail. Is there any hope for recovery? -- Tohler (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you copied over anything you thought worthwhile in 2006 and haven't wanted stuff since there is no need to bother with anything on that old computer. Its only purpose in the world now is to frustrate you and waste your time. I would suggest you carefully remove the drive from he old computer, put it on a spare concrete block or thick piece of wood on the ground, and then hit it viciously with a sledge hammer. That will stop you worrying about recovering anything from it and make you feel much better. Dmcq (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone believes I should help you waste your time so in that case you can probably put the old disk into the new machine and then run a disk checker or even a professional package on it. This will avoid needing to boot from the disk and the disk may still click a lot before the checker finishes but it probably won't crash the machine. I'd put the disk on iits side too and tap it lightly while off in case some flake or dust has come free. Plus it may work better if left for a little while to warm up a bit inside the new desktop. Also with it in the new desktop you can look at some directories even if there are problems elsewhere. The new drive may cause the line it is on to run slow so take the disk out when you've finished with it. Then when you find there really isn't anything worth the bother there you can crush it. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I already attempted to get all the dust possible off, with no success. I will try with the new desktop later. Thank you for your humorous first comment, it made me laugh :) -- Tohler (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was talking about inside the drive where anything like that can be pretty much fatal and they are very careful to stop it getting in from outside. Though i did hear tell of a much older type drive which was used in a cement factory and when it was opened up it was practically just shiny metal from the effect of the fine cement dust. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

SAMSUNG T10 MP3 PLAYER
where can I find the software (driver) for Samsung T10 MP3 Player? Thank you.175.157.1.97 (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick - to the Google! First hit is Samsungs product page - seems like good place to start. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)