locked
ATA66 or UPnP bottleneck on old hardware? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I am running a Socket 370 with a 1Ghz Celeron, and 256MB of PC133 RAM. I think that's near as low as you can go! If I understand the BIOS correctly, the IDE channel is ATA66, not even ATA100 or ATA133.  Is that the way it works? The network is wired, but not gigabit. And, all the clients are plenty fast.

     

    How much of a bottleneck is the ATA66 going to be? It seems OK on the windows shared for basic music, photos, and home videos. Will it still suffice when I get to DivX movies, or recorded TV? 

     

    It seems to run fine with my client machines on the windows shares. Interestingly, I connected GeexBox to the UPnP server, and it was crazy-slow. The well-known cache fix in the mplayer.conf file helped a little, but not much. Still, I would wait for a minute to load one screen of the music catalog.

     

    I don't know much about how UPnP works on the server. If I ever add an extender, those connect via UPnP I believe. So, is UPnP more processor intensive, and could it be throttling the processor? Or, does UPnP utilize more disk IO than simple CIFS shares, thus limited by the ATA66? Or, does UPnP have a higher network load?

     

    Thanks in advance if you care to comment.

    Friday, November 9, 2007 10:59 PM

Answers

  • ATA66 will be a problem if you have a lot of I/O activity on the server, such as streaming video while performing backups or having the system duplicate folders.  For basic file serving, etc. it will be fine -- but the more you push it, the more you will run into "delays" as the hard drives try and keep up.

     

    Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:15 AM

All replies

  • ATA66 will be a problem if you have a lot of I/O activity on the server, such as streaming video while performing backups or having the system duplicate folders.  For basic file serving, etc. it will be fine -- but the more you push it, the more you will run into "delays" as the hard drives try and keep up.

     

    Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:15 AM
  • Thanks! That seems to be inline with what I am seeing happen. I do have replication on all my folders. Everyday reading and writing performance is acceptable, even streaming home movies. But, large file operations (like 100MB photos) start to choke everything. I will send the UPnP question over the the GeexBox forums. You know, a great add-in would be a simple version of perfmon for the console, might not even need logs or alerts. Users could look for bottlenecks, without having to remote-desktop. I wonder what that would take.
    Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:56 PM
  • Missle -

     

    That sounds like a great idea to me!  Disk performance and perhaps network performance. 

     

    Robert

     

     

    Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:01 PM