Speeding up hard drives?

[Death]

The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy, now
will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes volumes
about your credibility.

Whose credibility?
You claim to actually charge people for installing/maintaining ubuntool, and
Windows...and yet don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Have you priced ubuntarded PCs versus Win7 PCs?
The claims made that ubuntool is free, saves one money are just untrue.
Preinstalled, both are priced about the same...no savings.
A dumbass paying *you* to install ubuntool got ripped by a moron.

The only way to save money is to build your own PC and install ubuntool
yourself.
Which can not only be a hassle, but can actually end up costing more in
money, time, and aggravation.

 

[Canuck57]

Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your
Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

It isn't rocket science to copy large 4-5 GB files and time them. Copy
is an end result test, hope long to copy bigfile from A to B.

And it isn't just Linux, Solaris and the BSDs show the same. Win7/Vista
is lethargic in copy performance.

Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

Sort of how I remember it. Not a lie. They wanted to take an already C
level security OS and make it good enough for A and B levels. MS can
only do C if you yank networking out of it last I heard.

Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
interest try DOS. - lie #3

I believe Linux is faster on the boot. Will often fir up two VMs at
once and Linux is alreays ready first.

You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
of the screen - lie #4

Agreed. Windows 7 still needs work.

Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
up dates - lie #5

Some of the best things in life are free. You like buying hookers?

Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

Say 10 years ago I would agree, today it isn't an issue. My Win 9x
systems sure made a lot of coasters too.

Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

Probably. But it was a toy hack to start with.

Probably ticks off you MS-Windows zealots that virtually every internet
protocol in use to day did not originate on MS-Windows and was pioneered
on a UNIX/Linux system.

 

[Death]

Yours.

My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.

Snip drivel.

No snipping of the drivel.
It's where the facts are.

So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
install it?
I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.

Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
you get to bill for.

Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
of doing web browsing and email.
For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.

 

[John B. slocomb]

First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS
and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to
fragment the test files used.

No I don't think so. I was testing the time it required to copy a
file. If Windows breaks up files and Linux doesn't then that is simply
an attribute of the system and should be included in the test. If one
didn't both systems to do their own thing, whatever it might be, then
you are not testing normal operation.

Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as
possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and
other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners
on both platforms.

Err... O.K. I'll agree but how about the 213 processes that are
running on Linux, at the moment? Is it fair to turn off some of them
as I don't believe Windows is running that many?

When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use
RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.

No, I used the command line on both systems.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. slocomb]

I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if
running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it
copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow
at file copy.

I wonder.

Years ago I was somewhat of a "C" fanatic. At the time I had two
compilers, Microsoft and Borland. The Borland not only compiled
quicker but their code ran faster. Which was a bit mystifying as I had
thought that "C" was "C". Finally I compiled the same utility with
both compilers and then disassembles them to see what was happening.
It turned out that the Borland code just did something, i.e., move
byte to A, move byte to B, do something. The Microsoft was doing this
and in addition it was checking for stack over flow every time it did
a push or pop. so while the Borland was faster the Microsoft was much
more robust.

I wonder whether the Linux code is just moving data while the Windows
is checking that it did it correctly. If the latter then that would
account for the slowness.

But then again it might just be Windows

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

iPads suck too. They are even more locked down and less open than
Windows Pcs. And iTunes has hellacious bloat as well. I don't disagree
with you, but I think that windows/MS is the lesser of 2 evils here.

 

[Bill Baka]

iPads suck too. They are even more locked down and less open than
Windows Pcs. And iTunes has hellacious bloat as well. I don't disagree
with you, but I think that windows/MS is the lesser of 2 evils here.

I'm using Linux (ubuntu) mostly because my XP and Windows 7 don't like
to play nice with each other. I just had a software update in the
background and didn't have to stop and reboot like windows usually
wants. I have to have windows for my HP scanner with no linux support or
any support of any kind, plus I am doing some stuff with the patent
office and their software assumes you have windows (last time I checked).
For disk to disk file transfers I tried both XP (NTFS) and Linux (EXT4)
and found that the linux was about twice as fast as windows using the
same drives but different partitions.
I still like windows since I get shareware updates from a few of my
magazines and find some nifty play-ware.

 

[Canuck57]

If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

 

[John B. slocomb]

I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

Not to pick at you but why not just install another internal drive?

Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are
considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. slocomb]

Your favorite hobby.


Are you serious?

How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.

I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA
drives in external enclosures as well.

If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they
certainly run slowly.
Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. slocomb]

I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I
do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a
slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the
USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18
MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the
"estimated time" which is unreliable.

If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much
difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just
back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail
remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things
up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Canuck57]

Your favorite hobby.


Are you serious?


I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA
drives in external enclosures as well.

I think he was serious. But seriously stupid to rely on two drives in
the same boxen/OS. But shows how limited many a MS pundits think.

For our other readers as Alias already knows this.

Backing up to Linux device has the following advantages.

1) Absolutely faster. Given the same hardware and network interfaces,
disk and network copy on Linux is vastly faster and more reliable than
MS- Windows. The largest CIFS servers in the world are Linux/SAMBA and
can take loads MS Windows can't handle in their dreams. Vista to Samba
is faster than Vista to Vista, go figure.

2) Normally you would leave the maps and shares unconnected so if a
virus/tojan/worm messes up your MS Windows, it isn't likely going to get
by Samba to do in the Linux copy.

3) Far supperior to 2 disks in one OS because if the OS screws up, it
can and often does take out both drives when it scrambles itself good.
Having a different OS for the destination, not an issue.

4) If MS Windows has licensing issues, or some weekly patch blows it up,
your Linux bex is quite safe from Uncle Ballmer.

 

[John B. slocomb]

Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal
drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.
Backing up to external media is computing 101.

I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
serviceable.

And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
site.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Canuck57]

I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a
computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power
supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main
board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still
serviceable.

And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)
dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If
you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two
sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off
site.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
works great and is secure.

 

[John B. slocomb]

Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...
works great and is secure.

I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. slocomb]

I can think of three:

1. Malware
2. Your computer is stolen.
3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.

Since my "desktop" is in the house I'm not too worried about someone
stealing it. If they do I undoubtedly will have more to worry about
then just the computer. The laptops, I make a point of not keeping any
data on them that I would worry about losing and never back them up.
If I lose one then my major complaint is that I've got to buy a new
computer.

Malware... I hear you talking but frankly I have never had any
problems with that. 15 or so years ago I got a Trojan from a bootleg
copied disk and I occasionally have seen cookies the report back to
somewhere else but the really damaging virus I read about I have never
seen. I have used a firewall for ever and ever and generally a scanner
frequently. The router/modem has a rudimentary firewall and I am
fairly cautious what I download or what I open on line.

I have had the same experience but I felt I was lucky.


I don't think that's all that necessary. I have been updated my way now
for a decade and I've never lost a byte. I do, however, keep one of my
hard drives off site.

Well, you are the one that mentioned fire and flood

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra
drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The
back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and
directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a
virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in
Windows 7, BTW.

 

[Schweik]

I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in
Windows 7, BTW.

Question: How do you know it is unmounted? I thought Windows
automatically mounted every FAT or HPFS system that it could see?

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Question: How do you know it is unmounted? I thought Windows
automatically mounted every FAT or HPFS system that it could see?

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

Explorer doesn't see the drive when I plug it in. It doesn't have a drive
letter and it isn't associated with a folder. Both of these are still true
while the backup program is running.

I did this is by choice, in Disk management...

In fact, I have backed up successfully to unmounted drives using two
different backup programs, Macrium Reflect and Casper.

 

[Char Jackson]

Explorer doesn't see the drive when I plug it in. It doesn't have a drive
letter and it isn't associated with a folder. Both of these are still true
while the backup program is running.

I did this is by choice, in Disk management...

In fact, I have backed up successfully to unmounted drives using two
different backup programs, Macrium Reflect and Casper.

Hi Gene,
How are you referencing your unmounted volumes? Obviously not by drive
letter, so I'm curious. Thanks.