Computer slows on long file moves

Discussion in 'Asus' started by AxeClinton, Oct 18, 2003.

  1. AxeClinton

    AxeClinton Guest

    I am runing a P4T-E-1.7 GHz P4 512 RDRAM

    Aftern moving large files like copyiing one patition to another or moving a
    super large file my machine starts to slow down. I MEAN SLOW DOWN. You can see
    the taskbar come up slowly, Windows will open up slowly, yoo can actually see
    them writing to the screen. If you open a program after the transfer, it will
    take for ever. It is really awful. I have been dealing with this issue since I
    first got the P4T-E.

    I have done everything that can be done except change the mobo. I have
    installed the latest chipset drivers and the Intel Application Accelerator and
    BIOS.

    Any ideas?
     
    AxeClinton, Oct 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. AxeClinton

    BoB Guest

    With windows xp, I would disable drive indexing!
     
    BoB, Oct 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. AxeClinton

    rstlne Guest

    Yea..
    Your trying to move more data than the OS likes..
    Basically If your trying to move 1 gig then you should have 3x + 500meg free
    so 3.5 gig free on BOTH drives for it to move over pretty good

    That's the only thing I can think of
     
    rstlne, Oct 18, 2003
    #3
  4. AxeClinton

    AJ Guest

    Sounds like your RAM is all tied up. This tiny program by Analogx will
    relase RAM that other programs should have but didn't. When you see a
    slow down double click the icon in the tray.
    http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/maxmem.htm
     
    AJ, Oct 18, 2003
    #4
  5. AxeClinton

    Tim Guest

    Not true.

    You can move any sized file with practically any amount of memory - high or
    low.
    What you are describing is that if you have 'free' memory, Windows will
    leave the file data in memory as cached data since you have just read it so
    may be likely to want to read it again. Consequently you will see Windows
    memory usage in Task Manager (right click on the task bar to show it) swing
    around when copying large files. The moment this memory is required for
    anything else it is freed no a least used basis...

    - Tim
     
    Tim, Oct 19, 2003
    #5
  6. AxeClinton

    Tim Guest

    Axe,

    I would check for Virii, indexing tasks as BoB indicates, virus scanner
    activity, non standard settings for windows priorities and cache settings.
    If you have ever downloaded any windows "optimisers" then they may be the
    culiprits as there are a lot of 'tweaks' that people are under the illusion
    will give enhanced performance when in fact Windows knows well how to manage
    things itself.

    What specific OS and version are you using? If you are using say W2K server
    (or NT or W2003) you can set memory priority to background tasks - this can
    cause this type of behaviour. (Under NT Workstation, W2K Pro, XP Pro, & XP
    Home priority is by default to foreground tasks). This will cause any cached
    data to be held onto more strongly and user applications to have memory
    aggressively trimmed. This setting is typical in a File Server situation
    where you are not supposed to do anything other than Manage the server when
    logged in on it - all priority is given to serving up files.

    If in doubt, and you are running XP, remove all 'optimisers', run virus
    scans, run spyware scans, and try a repair install of XP.

    Fire up Task Manager (right click on the task bar in W2K / XP) and watch
    what happens when you do a large file copy. Is there another task that gets
    busy? What does happen to memory allocation?

    - Tim
     
    Tim, Oct 19, 2003
    #6
  7. AxeClinton

    rstlne Guest

    Yea but windows will constantly swap the data, tit for tat over and over..
    If you are trying to move say 2 gig of data and you only have 200 meg free
    then It's going to do much more work and thus the movemnt slows down, this
    was my point
     
    rstlne, Oct 19, 2003
    #7
  8. AxeClinton

    Ben Pope Guest


    I missed your original comment, but there is no reason why data transfers
    should be significantly different in speed whether you have 200Meg or 2Gig
    of RAM free.

    It's going to read the data and then write the data in chunks, probably much
    larger than the block size in order to increase speed, but there comes a
    point where there is no improvement... probably where your block-shift-size
    meets the standard read-ahead size, which is probably gonna be less than a
    Meg or two.

    OK I've just tried it - I copied a 700Meg file. Memory useage changed by
    like 200KB, which is probably the icons and file copy dialog box. What did
    increase was System cache... It went from ~460MB to 820MB and stayed high
    until high until I deleted the file. Now it was actually using System RAM
    for caching that file (I'm using a Server OS, so LargeSystemCache = 1), but
    can immediately dump that if an application requires that memory. Now,
    having the SystemCache increase massively is not used to increase the speed
    of Current File Transfers, only to increase the speed of accessing the files
    in that cache should I need to.

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Oct 19, 2003
    #8
  9. AxeClinton

    rstlne Guest

    OK I've just tried it - I copied a 700Meg file. Memory useage changed by

    Try moving something the size of your free space
    so if you have 6 gig left, move 6 gig worth of data
    hwo long does it take
    then move 2 gig worth of data
    how long does it take

    I bet it took more than 3* the length of time to move the 6 gig than it did
    the 2 gig
     
    rstlne, Oct 20, 2003
    #9
  10. AxeClinton

    Ben Pope Guest

    Free space where? On the drive?
    I take it you mean on the drive then.
    Thats a whole different kettle of fish... data will unlikely be contiguous,
    so yeah, it'll take longer as there are more seeks. What does that have to
    do with the amount of free RAM you have?

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Oct 20, 2003
    #10
  11. AxeClinton

    rstlne Guest

    Thats a whole different kettle of fish... data will unlikely be
    contiguous,
    Nothing
    Why you talking about ram?
    Tim Changed "Drive Space" to "Memory"
    so I talked about "Swapping Files" trying to direct it back to Hard Drives
    heh
     
    rstlne, Oct 20, 2003
    #11
  12. AxeClinton

    Ben Pope Guest

    Like I said earlier, I missed the first part of the thread, I thought we
    were talking about memory as RAM, rather then disk space.

    I didn't notice that (still can't, but hey).

    (from a previous post)
    Moving a 2Gig file when you have 200Meg (on the hard disk) free is either
    going to fail (if the source and target partitions are different) or take
    next to no time, since only the file reference is changed (this depends on
    your file system type). I'm not sure what you are talking about. Moving a
    file within the directory structure is unlikely going to involve touching
    the data in question (not on any file systems I know of, anyway).

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Oct 20, 2003
    #12
  13. AxeClinton

    rstlne Guest

    Moving a 2Gig file when you have 200Meg (on the hard disk) free is either
    I just had to go look back at the original msg
    I thought he was moving from drive to drive
    damn..
    he's moving partition to partition heh
     
    rstlne, Oct 20, 2003
    #13
  14. AxeClinton

    Ben Pope Guest

    Little to no difference. The data must be physically moved in both cases.
    Obviously it'll be faster if drive to drive and on different channels.

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Oct 20, 2003
    #14
  15. AxeClinton

    Gareth Jones Guest

    If all the other suggestions fail, I'd check the CPU temp and make sure
    its not throttling back and slowing itself down when it gets hot !?!

    --
    __________________________________________
    <Gareth Jones> [email protected]_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk

    "Reality sucks - go watch a Star Trek"

    To email, remove the '_ns_' from
    [email protected]_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk
    __________________________________________
     
    Gareth Jones, Oct 20, 2003
    #15
  16. AxeClinton

    Pief Guest

    Ive seen symptoms like this when the little jumpers on the drive dont match
    with its master/slave config -thats a lucky bet.

    You could try using a new cable,preferably a sheilded round one,or knocking
    the udma rate down a notch or two in the bios,or trying pio mode 2.

    I dont know it, but heard some say the intel app'acceler' can make things
    worse.

    gl,
     
    Pief, Oct 21, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.