Average Disk Queue Length high (mean=5, max 22) Vista x64 (help?)

I'm not sure what is going on, but I have two Vista x64 RTM machines..
one at work, one at home.

The one at work is a Dell 380, PD 2.8ghz, 3gb ram, 800fsb, 533mhz
ram.. ~69% memory used... My primary harddrive here is a SATAI (1.5 gb/
s) seagate 80gb drive, with a SATAII secondary..

At home its a Dual Core 2 , 1.86ghz, 2gb ram (800mhz), ~70% memory
used.. Primary HD is Seagate 160gb Sata II (3.0 gb/s) , with secondary
D a 500gb hitachi 3.0 gb/s sataII, and a few other 400gb seagate 1.5
gb/s HDs.

I run the Reliability and Perf. Monitor on both pcs (while stuff is
open, but not running/using alot of cpu time)...

At work.. my physical disk counters show %disk time mean of 13, max of
75, with a avg disk queue length of 0.79 mean, max of 5...

At home the %disk time max is around 200%.. the disk queue length mean
is 4, with a max of 22.

In both cases I have the OS managing the swap file as well.

I have noticed that my home PC runs alittle slower (opening of dialogs
and boxes slower to come up) than the work one (which shouldnt be the
case, esp with sataII and dual core)..

Anyone know of things to try to fix the disk queue length bottleneck?

Ram doesnt seem to be the issue either...

Thanks

Yep almost the same as me except avgn is 2 0.5 is min and max is 16 (or 8
depends on what I don't know). Makes it sound as if the disk is running slow
but SATA2 also SATA1 should be very good. The specs that Microsoft said is
800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, and a 35GB hard disk which is so old it would have to
be IDE 66MHz. You like me are using something light years past this and it
does not work and blue screen of death and reboots happen that never did in
XP; Nor in the Vista Beta, RC1 and RC2 of Vista. I beleive that it was rushed
out to the market too fast and they are not admitting it as it would hurt
sales.

I have tried ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI motherboards (all new), also 3
differnt power supplies all good makes and new, 4 NEW Hard Disks (2 Samsung
SpinPoint 160GB both SATA2, also 2 of Western Digital 350GB 7200RPM, one with
16MB buffer and the other with 8MB buffer running at first SATA23 then SATA1)
No suprizes no differences same results. So motherboards, Power Supplies and
Hard Disk's have no effect. I have also tried Samsung matched PC3200 Memory
also 2 sets of Corsair 1GB matched sets of memory. Hence why I think it a
fault with the program.
--
jannerhank


"markm75" wrote:

> I'm not sure what is going on, but I have two Vista x64 RTM machines..
> one at work, one at home.
>
> The one at work is a Dell 380, PD 2.8ghz, 3gb ram, 800fsb, 533mhz
> ram.. ~69% memory used... My primary harddrive here is a SATAI (1.5 gb/
> s) seagate 80gb drive, with a SATAII secondary..
>
> At home its a Dual Core 2 , 1.86ghz, 2gb ram (800mhz), ~70% memory
> used.. Primary HD is Seagate 160gb Sata II (3.0 gb/s) , with secondary
> D a 500gb hitachi 3.0 gb/s sataII, and a few other 400gb seagate 1.5
> gb/s HDs.
>
> I run the Reliability and Perf. Monitor on both pcs (while stuff is
> open, but not running/using alot of cpu time)...
>
> At work.. my physical disk counters show %disk time mean of 13, max of
> 75, with a avg disk queue length of 0.79 mean, max of 5...
>
> At home the %disk time max is around 200%.. the disk queue length mean
> is 4, with a max of 22.
>
> In both cases I have the OS managing the swap file as well.
>
> I have noticed that my home PC runs alittle slower (opening of dialogs
> and boxes slower to come up) than the work one (which shouldnt be the
> case, esp with sataII and dual core)..
>
> Anyone know of things to try to fix the disk queue length bottleneck?
>
> Ram doesnt seem to be the issue either...
>
> Thanks
>
>