Do cached Hard Drives make much difference to Linux?

[ahhaa]

Among the posts on various forums, there are always some about people running Linux on old machines with 10 gig hard drives or whatever. These are pre-cache drives, but nobody seems to talk about improving performance by upgrading in this way.

Then again, I was reading about some bizarre new drive strategy Vista will use...

anybody wanna talk about this?

[RLT69]

Then again, I was reading about some bizarre new drive strategy Vista will use...

Yeah, the reason being Vista is a resource hog and needs the extra caching! Linux does not. The new strategy is using USB flash drives as cache for the OS. It sounds neat but it's stop gap measure to improve Vista's performance.

Do a search and you'll find articles where people talk about this.

Everyday Vista looks like a Delorean

[JohnnyMalaria]

Then again, I was reading about some bizarre new drive strategy Vista will use...

Yeah, the reason being Vista is a resource hog and needs the extra caching! Linux does not. The new strategy is using USB flash drives as cache for the OS. It sounds neat but it's stop gap measure to improve Vista's performance.

You misunderstand it then. Windows has always used a paging file so that contents of memory can be switched between physical RAM and the hard drive. The problem is that in modern systems, the access time for reading/writing to the hard drive is a major bottleneck. The USB idea allows the OS to use flash RAM on a USB drive instead of traditional hard drives.

Of course, the best thing to do is have so much physical RAM that you don't need a paging file.

[RLT69]

You misunderstand it then. Windows has always used a paging file so that contents of memory can be switched between physical RAM and the hard drive. The problem is that in modern systems, the access time for reading/writing to the hard drive is a major bottleneck. The USB idea allows the OS to use flash RAM on a USB drive instead of traditional hard drives.

I know Windows uses pages. The idea behind the Flash Drive is to cache files onto the Flash drive as opposed to accessing via the HD. My comment was not as clear.

The problem is it uses Flash technology which is not as robust as HD tech and can cause issues in terms of long term storage, as this article points out:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1974952,00.asp

However, in other operating systems such as Linux/Unix, accessing files on a hard drive does not cause a massive slow down of the system. I've noticed this in 2000 and XP, while in Linux it does not. This is an OS issue not a HD issue.

A USB flash drive is just a bad idea for a caching strategy. Increase system memory or the cache on the HD. Those are the best approaches.

[ahhaa]

Some distros, like Puppy, have been experimenting with running the OS from flash drives, and encountered performance problems-
as I understand it, FDs try to hold data in an 'evenly-spread' manner; which is inherently self-fragmenting. Dunno if this is software-programmed or part of the hardware design, but they haven't been able to lick it.

[greymalkin]

However, in other operating systems such as Linux/Unix, accessing files on a hard drive does not cause a massive slow down of the system. I've noticed this in 2000 and XP, while in Linux it does not.

What version of Linux are you talking about? Every time I've ever run linux it hung for a ridiculous amount of time no matter what program I was loading. Windows on the same machine always responded better. That's one of the big turnoff's I've always had with Linux. Straight out of the box with all the default installation settings it just runs slower. And any of the distro's that come close to the functionality/ease of use of windows are slooooooow.

I'm sure I could spend a couple days re-compiling the kernel and follow a simple 200 step process to tweak my Linux box, but right out of the box the versions of Linux I've tried have always performed poorly for me unless it's DSL or some other minimalist OS. the major "user-friendly" versions like mandrake, knoppix, ubuntu...etc. ALL hang whenever you try to open any program.

[Allan Gabston_Howell]

Every time I've ever run linux it hung for a ridiculous amount of time no matter what program I was loading. Windows on the same machine always responded better.
8><
Straight out of the box with all the default installation settings it just runs slower. And any of the distro's that come close to the functionality/ease of use of windows are slooooooow.

I find this to be a somewhat...uh...interesting...claim; which, by the way, flies in the face of the published, consistently duplicated, findings of several credible (not microsoft, or microsoft partner, paid or funded) test labs across the globe.

In nearly every instance of of dealing with complaints like this, I have found severely misconfigured/misintegrated hardware, improper BIOS settings, or incorrect drivers to be at the root of the problem. Recompiling the kernel is hardly necessary.

How much memory does the machine in question have, what is the uP type and speed, what specific versions of the two Operating Systems were you running in a head-to-head comparison; and, are you comparing the usage of a Live-CD distribution with that of a hard drive installation of windoze?

Actually, in looking at your statement of the equipment you're running, it seems pretty obvious that your issue is related to an incorrect video driver for the ATI card; which, incidentally, is just about the absolute worst video adapter choice possible. ATI's own Linux drivers are well-known to be inept, at best.

It is self-evident that your complaint will be competently laid to rest, if you select an nVidia video adapter which has proper driver support available for it.

If the listed specs are not those of the system you claim poor Linux performance from, then the earlier questions remain to be answered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To the OP:
There has been some discussion on JustLinux.com about the very subject you raised, as well as some admirable insight into the matter. I don't believe that it was specifically raised over there that, this is merely another chunk of money that one will have to spend to get acceptable performance out of an incrementally-more inferior Operating System. I would well imagine that the flash memory vendors will love microsoft dearly for this windfall in their market segment.

General conclusions were along the lines of flash memory mortality rates being a severe lifetime issue; and the USB bandwidth, as compared to that of PATA or SATA channels, being a limiting factor. For the methodology to 'fly correctly' as it were, caching and delayed write-back tricks will have to be played behind the curtain. So much for the Wizard of Oz.

That the technique is being implemented says a couple of things:
(1.) Vista is a more bloated pig than we dared to imagine (this is to be expected from Redmond); even though we understand all too well how bloated and inefficient microsoft offerings have always been.
and
(2.) The TCO of windoze is, as always, on the increase (don't expect those figures to be factored into any microsoft-funded TCO propoganda).

[tekkieman]

The new strategy is using USB flash drives as cache for the OS.

Somehow I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to be able to excercise their FAT patent and collect royalties from all the flash makers as now, again, the FAT specification will become an "intregal" part of the OS.

[Allan Gabston_Howell]

I may be wrong in my recollections, but I remember reading something about the FAT patent being overturned on "prior art", and "trivially obvious" objections.

[oldandinthe way]

Cache memory on drives can yield signifant performance gains based upon the specific applications being run and the mix of simultaneous applications independant of the operating system being used. The performance gain may be greater in certain operating systems enviornments.

Caching whether on the drive, in computer memory or on even a slow USB flash drive is a statistical means of enhancing performance and will differ in effectiveness based upon the specific software mix, its data requirements and the organization of the hard disk. It will also be affected by the interface to the hard disk and its bandwidth. Maintainence activities such as defragmentation will also impact its effectiveness.

The effectiveness of cached drives will depend on your system and applications, even with Linux.

[ahhaa]

Waddayathink will happen to ReiserFS?

[greymalkin]

Every time I've ever run linux it hung for a ridiculous amount of time no matter what program I was loading. Windows on the same machine always responded better.
8><
Straight out of the box with all the default installation settings it just runs slower. And any of the distro's that come close to the functionality/ease of use of windows are slooooooow.

I find this to be a somewhat...uh...interesting...claim; which, by the way, flies in the face of the published, consistently duplicated, findings of several credible (not microsoft, or microsoft partner, paid or funded) test labs across the globe.

In nearly every instance of of dealing with complaints like this, I have found severely misconfigured/misintegrated hardware, improper BIOS settings, or incorrect drivers to be at the root of the problem. Recompiling the kernel is hardly necessary.

You are saying it doesn't work with Linux well because it's misconfigured/misintegrated..etc.. I would believe that except for the fact that it works flawlessly with Windows. Once again..I'm talking about straight out of the box with no tweaking involved. I have assembled computers for well over a decade and worked computer support for just about as long. I certainly don't think I'm infallible, but when the same exact hardware setup causes one OS to work great and another to work poorly it doesn't make sense to blame the hardware. You could blame me I suppose, but I don't think I'm the reason either .

How much memory does the machine in question have, what is the uP type and speed, what specific versions of the two Operating Systems were you running in a head-to-head comparison; and, are you comparing the usage of a Live-CD distribution with that of a hard drive installation of windoze?

The machine has 1gb ram and it was a hard drive install. I was comparing WinXP to whatever the most current versions of mandrake, ubuntu, etc...were at the time (within the past 3-4 years).

Actually, in looking at your statement of the equipment you're running, it seems pretty obvious that your issue is related to an incorrect video driver for the ATI card; which, incidentally, is just about the absolute worst video adapter choice possible. ATI's own Linux drivers are well-known to be inept, at best.

Well I can't fault Linux if ATI has sorry Linux drivers, but remember I was talking about "straight out of the box" performance. Saying that hardware is terrible just because it doesn't work in Linux isn't logical.

It is self-evident that your complaint will be competently laid to rest, if you select an nVidia video adapter which has proper driver support available for it.

If the listed specs are not those of the system you claim poor Linux performance from, then the earlier questions remain to be answered.

Don't get me wrong, I have wanted to use Linux for many years and every once in a while I go back and install the latest and greatest linux distro that gets good reviews. I really was impressed with the features in ubuntu and the very useful set of applications it comes with. Maybe I'm using sucky distros and if so I'll be happy to install whatever you would suggest. I'm not going to commit myself to buying a whole new video card. Maybe that is part of the performance issue but shouldn't make much of an impact.

[oldcpu]

Well I can't fault Linux if ATI has sorry Linux drivers, but remember I was talking about "straight out of the box" performance. Saying that hardware is terrible just because it doesn't work in Linux isn't logical.

I have 3 pcs at home, none of which will run "straight out of the box" with windows. Each one needs custom drivers from both the motherboard supplier, and the graphic card supplier. But all 3 works straight out of the box with linux. .... Funny how things can be the opposite, dependant on the hardware one selects.

I'm not going to commit myself to buying a whole new video card. Maybe that is part of the performance issue but shouldn't make much of an impact.

A driver makes a big impact on hardware. If you have been working with computers a lot, then you know that.

Based on what you have posted, I agree with your conclusion that linux is not the OS for you. If you insist on using hardware from a supplier that is known to supply less than optimal linux OS drivers for their hardware, and if you refuse to try and optimise the driver setup for the Linux OS to work around the supplier's driver "problem", then as you have already concluded, it is best for you to stay away from the linux OS.

[greymalkin]

Try and remember the 2 criteria under which my post was written.

This was 1)what I found to be the case with MY setup with 2)just the bare OS loaded.

I think everyone will be a little less dramatic if they keep that in mind. It has nothing to do with refusing to update drivers or insisting on hardware that doesn't work well with Linux straight out of the box. The truth is I would prefer to use Linux and perhaps I didn't have enough patience with it. I've got a freshly formatted 120gb drive I will plug into my PC and load whatever linux distro you think would suit me best..update all the drivers..etc. Ubuntu just released a new version on 10/26...maybe I'll try that.

[ahhaa]

I must come to GM's support here. I feel much the same way, and have tried several distros over several years.

Right now, I'm struggling with a Gateway machine that I can't get any of 5 distros to run in Live CD mode. (Allan has SM installed on a similar machine which makes it worse in a way. )

Yet on that same machine, Windows ME runs fine out of under 400 Megs of HD space on 64 megs of RAM. The modem works, the printer works, the monitor is hires full color, and apps open at reasonable speed. With Kerio & AVG its a working machine.

Save all the 'ME is crap' comments or the 'apples & oranges' stuff.

I wanted very much for this to be a linux machine, and would have expected many distros to be particularly tuned to 'recently obsolete' (2001-2004) machines; as their best opportunity to quickly increase the distro's footprint.

After a minimum of 20 hours already invested in this project, I am asking myself why do I want linux so much?

[tekkieman]

I am asking myself why do I want linux so much?

I think with the recent changes in XP with WGA, and the upcoming Vista, a lot of people are asking themselves the same question. There is no one size fits all answer. Those who come to linux looking for "..just like Windows...only different" will be discouraged, possibly bad-mouth linux (out of ignorance), and go right back to Windows. Those who come looking at a viable alternative with many advantages (and some disadvantages) over Windows, they'll take the time to learn this new system. It doesn't really require any more (or less) effort than it took to originally learn Windows. It's just different.