XANSYS Message: 20593 [Go back to message list]
[bookmark on del.icio.us]
No rating yet
Rate item:

Subject: Re: win2000 performance
Author: Fernand Thomassy
Date: 2001-01-29 15:35:00

Hi,

I have not tried Windows 2000 yet but I have a question. What disks are
ya'll using? Most of our NT systems use Seagate/Cheetah (10000RPM)
SCSI-III disks and we have been happy with them. Other systems have LVD
disks.

I wonder if this issue is a general SCSI issue with Windows 2000 or if it
is manufacturer specific or if it is all disks.

Thanks in advance for all your replied ... Fern

Fernand A. Thomassy, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Engine Design Section
Southwest Research Institute
email: fthomassy@s...
http://enginedesign.swri.org

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Mark Rodamaker wrote:

> WE have done some testing of NT versus Win2k and have come to the same
> conclusions. Assuming you are running in batch, there is a nice summary at
> the end of the output file. The 2 OS's seem to take the same amount of CPU
> time so the basic system performance is the same. The elapsed or wallclock
> times are where the difference occurs with Win2k always slower. Apparently,
> Disc I/O is not working as well. This may not be noticeable on some
> problems because I/O will be far less if the run allows direct assembly and
> the solver is PCG,JCG or ICCG. For nonlinear runs , there will always be a
> lot of I/O so the slow I/O will be noticeable.

> Mark Rodamaker
> MCR Associates
> Sunnyvale,California
> voice: 408-736-1636

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baskin, Bryan"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [xansys] win2000 performance

> > It was probably my email that you are referring to. We tested our new
> > Win2000 based software load months ago and compared the performance to
> WinNT
> > on the same hardware. On some small jobs, no performance difference, but
> on
> > large jobs, up to 30% more clock time. On the particular test, a
> 600,000DOF
> > model with plasticity and contacts, this performace delta translated to 18
> > additional hours of runtime. So I guess my results would seem to match
> > yours. I suspect it may be I/O and or driver related and that non-linear
> > models might suffer the most if that's true. If it's a driver problem,
> etc.
> > then there is hope for improvement.

> > Kinda irritating to pay more for less, isn't it? ;-)

> > Bryan Baskin
> > Bell Heligottalovewinderscopter Textron, Inc.
> > Texas.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Forster Daniel [mailto:forsterdaniel@j...]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:55 AM
> > To: 'xansys '
> > Subject: [xansys] win2000 performance

> > I have done benchmarks w/ ansys 5.6.2 on two identical machines, one w/
> > win2000 and one w/ winnt and found drastic performance problems on win2000
> > (30 to 60% increase in wall time). Some coworkers have not seen this and
> in
> > fact have used the same benchmark on two separate identical machines and
> > found no decrease in performance. I'm surprised that I only found one
> email
> > in the archive related to performance problems on win2000, maybe something
> > is wrong with our win2000 machine. Has anyone else had the opportunity to
> > test win2000 on similar hardware that you use for winnt? Our ASD has
> > acknowledged the performance problem but didn't give any data yet to
> compare
> > w/ my numbers.

> > On the plus side, we have noticed that win2000 is much better at
> > multitasking while ansys is running in batch mode, and may even have
> better
> > multi processor performance than winnt.

> > thanks,

> > Daniel Forster
> > Product Engineer
> > Axle Engineering
> > Funk Mfg., Subsidiary of Deere and Company
> > Voice (316) 252-3136
> > Fax (316) 252-3432

Posts possibly associated with message #20593AuthorDateScore
20572win2000 performanceForster Daniel forsterdaniel@2001/01/29 
20574Re: win2000 performanceBryan Baskin2001/01/29 
20589Re: win2000 performanceMark Rodamaker2001/01/29 
20593Re: win2000 performanceFernand Thomassy2001/01/29 
20601Re: win2000 performanceBryan Baskin2001/01/29 
20611Re: win2000 performanceForster Daniel forsterdaniel@2001/01/30