Hard drives..... Are they working as they should?

[otheos]

Many people come and ask if their hard drives perform at maximum speed! I don't blame you, it's gotta be as fast as possible!

How can you be sure?

Benchmarking is one way to tell how your system performs. For Storage devices you need dedicated benchmarking tools and this means forget Sandra.

There are commercial tools that I am not going to talk about since we try to stick to the free (or as cheap as possible) ones :)

First, before all the tuning starts, see how the drive's raw performance is. This will be like running wcpuid (ask about it on the CPU forums) to see if your CPU runs at the speed it should! The equivalent tool for this job is HDTACH. You can download it from here (http://www.tcdlabs.com/hdtach.htm), but you need to register to allow write tests or NT/W2K use! it's cheap so do so if you want.

Now ideally HDTACH (2.61 latest version) should be run on unpartitioned drives! If you want to do the write test, you can only do it in unpartitioned drives so don't pay for registration just to benchmark write performance on your already set up drive!!!

Install HDTACH, and run it. Select the drive you want to benchmark and tick the Advanced size check box. This is essential for drives larger than 8.4GB, as it tests on the whole disk size. Before you click run, make sure no other disk activity on ANY drive is taking place. IDE drives on the same channel (cable) cannot access the bus simultaneously so if your benchmark say the slave and access the master (or vice versa) your drive's performance will not be revealed!!!.

Click run test and wait patiently. Once it's finished, expect to see something similar to this:
http://www.otheos.clara.net/pub/hd1.gif

Now lets see what this means:



otheos's site (http://www.otheos.clara.net)

[otheos]

The obvious is the plot:
Vertical axis MB/s, horizontal axis is position on the disk. If you haven't ticked the Advanced size check, you'll only see the first ~9GB of your disk, and this is a BAD IDEA if your disk is larger (remember, partitions don't count here).

The disk tested here is an IBM 36LZX 9.1GB, 10000rpm U160SCSI drive. As it is partitioned we cannot run the write test (some other time)
We notice that the outer side of the disk is faster (simple physics) and progressively it's slower as you move inwards. Remember this when you partition your drive! The first partition is the fastest and the last the slowest.
At 36MB/s outer and 22MB/s inner, it's right on spec (as manufacturer claims).
The drop at about 4.3GB is normal as this is the OS drive so it might be accessed during the test (and cause the drop). Expect to see a few of these drops if you test the OS drive, but if they're too many sart worrying (and try again).

Now there are also two horizontal bars:
The first is the access times in milliseconds! It reads 8.9ms. The drive's spec are 5.3ms (this is a 10K rpm SCSI drive!), so what is wrong??
The access time is the some of the seek+latency (I am being simplistic here so give me a break :)). The latency is the time it takes for the drive to spin half time! So if this drive spins 10000 times in 60sec, 1 revolution will take... 0.5*60/10000sec or 3ms. So if I subtract this from 8.9ms I get 5.9ms which around the advertised seek time (if you make a few tests and get the average you may notice a value closer to the advertised). So as far as seek goes, everything's cool.

The second bar is the Burst speed in MB/s
I get 48MB/s which sounds dissapointing for an U160 SCSI device. Right? Wrong! The Burst speed is a measure of how much data can the bus support (the U160 is 160MB/s, ATA100 is 100MB/s ATA66 is 66MB/s). Whether a single device can fill all this is a different story! What is important here is to make sure the burst speed is quite higher than the drive's advertised maximum STR so that there is no chance the drive is limited by the bus. This is the place you see if your ATA100 drive works ok or not! If it gives lower than 30MB/s something is wrong.

In my case I could play around with the drivers of my SCSI card (or for IDE drives with the relevant drivers) to get it around 70-80MB/s. But since Burst rate does not affect performance as long as it's within spec, I let it as is.

Finally with the red characters you get the Max, Min (that's the total min, i.e the drop not the end of the drive) and the average, in case you can't read them off the chart!

At the bottom you get the CPU utilization which is the last important bit. With current Bus master IDE interfaces and DMA this value should be bellow 10%! If more, check your drivers as this means your CPU is quite hogged for every singe disk access! This is worth fixing!
In my case, I decided to reinstall the drivers to fix the CPU utilization (for SCSI is typically 1-3%).

Ok, so you know how to do the test now right?


otheos's site (http://www.otheos.clara.net)

[G]

Hi Otheos,
I’m glad you gave a detailed account of HD-Tach, as, unfortunately for the computer user, there is no help file or accompanied documentation to explain any of the results obtained.

Can you analyse my results? My computer system is as follows:

HD 1:
IBM 36LZX 36.7GB U160+ 10 000 Rpm.
Windows OS is Win98 with latest updates and the like. It is partitioned in to three. The primary partition (C) is 6.5GB on which the OS resides and other applications, e.g., MS Word etc. The second partition is the extended partition dived in to two logical drives, (D) 517MB (Win98 swap file) and (E) 28GB unused. All FAT32.

HD 2:
IBM 36LZX 36.7GB U160+ 10 000 Rpm.
Three logical drives. (F) 4GB used to store wav files for copying to CD, (G) 2GB unused, 20GB is unallocated, (H) 6GB (for storing my Drive Image V4 files, (I) 2GB for storing my shareware and freeware programs. All FAT2.

The computer is an IBM 300XL (model 6588), P2 266MHz, 96MB RAM. It’s about four years old. SCSI interface is Adaptec’s AHA-2940UW using Adaptec’s latest high quality cables. The HDs are connected to the 68-pin connector. It is my intention to build a new computer using the HDs described above plus Plextor 40max and Plextor 12/10/32S (connected to the 50-pin connector) but events in America made it difficult for my family on holiday there to bring the equipment over to the UK. Therefore, the new computer will have to wait for the time being.

The test using registered HD-Tach was carried out with no applications open or running in the background, albeit, Systray and Explorer.

The results are as follows:
HD 1: Test one and two.

Random access time = 8.8 and 8.9
Read burst speed (Mbs^-1) = 26.9 and 22.1
Read speed max = 152651.0 and 153475.0 (kps)
Read speed min = 9709.0 and 16387.0 (kps)
Mean read speed = 29314.4 and 29339.0 (kps)
CPU utilisation = 18.1 and 18.1 %

HD 2: Test one and two.
Random access time = 8.9 and 9.0
Read burst speed (Mbs^-1) = 31.5 and 31.5
Read speed max = 28954.0 and 29012.0 (kps)
Read speed min = 19481.0 and 21341.0 (kps)
Mean read speed = 27023.8 and 27022.3 (kps)
CPU utilisation = 9.4 and 9.3 %

For each test and for each individual drive the numbers are relatively close.
However, what would be the explanation for HD1s Read burst speed hitting as high as 150 000 (kps) approximately in the range 1GB to 2.3GB. The equivalent for HD2 is only 29 000 (kps) approximately. Why is CPU utilisation for HD1 twice that of HD2? Is there any reason why this is so? What would you recommend, and if so, what would you recommend to rectify any strange behaviour.

You said, ‘If more, check your drivers as this means your CPU is quite hogged for every singe disk access! This is worth fixing! In my case, I decided to reinstall the drivers to fix the CPU utilization (for SCSI is typically 1-3%)’. What drives would these be exactly?


All the best,
G

[otheos]

This is an odd situation. You have a older system with very fast hard drives.

The 36LZX are very fast hard drives and unfortunatelly your AHA2940 is severely limiting their performance in two ways:

first, the 40MB/s max (around 35MB/s without the overhead) is really close to the max STR of the drive and chances are the drivea don't reach it.

Leave drive 1 for the moment as the HDtach results need more discussion, and look at drive two.

With:
Random access time = 8.9 and 9.0 *This is OK*
Read burst speed (Mbs^-1) = 31.5 and 31.5 *Within the cards limits*
Read speed max = 28954.0 and 29012.0 (kps) *Drive is capable of 36MB/s*
Read speed min = 19481.0 and 21341.0 (kps) *ok*
Mean read speed = 27023.8 and 27022.3 (kps) *must be flat for most of the plot due to the bandwidth limit imposed by the controller*
CPU utilisation = 9.4 and 9.3 % *not bad considering the load and CPU*

the second is that the bandwidth is SCSI is addtive. Unlike ATA devices where ATA100 gives 100MB/s to each drive when it works, SCSI devices share the 40MB/s that your card is offering. If you copy from one drive to another and the max write speed is ~24MB/s you only have another 6-8MB/s left for the read. Since it's not split like that, you can only be certain of one thing, that those two drives are burried with this controller.

So: Get a new controller. At least an U2W (the tekram u2w is my favorite but Adaptec's AHA2940U2W sell for peanuts at ebay, just make sure an LVD cable comes with it as they cost GBP40!!). A U3W card won't offer too much on top as the PCI limit of 133MB/s (theoretica, but true is near 110MB/s) only gives an extra 30-40MB/s (from 70MB/s true for the U2W). I believe you can get away with the u2w even by adding a couple of optical drives. (BTW if you want a SCSI burner look at the Yamaha 2200S -it's an IDE + adaptor and sells at www.dabs.com for GPB135 + GBP28 for the adaptor, and works like a charm. cheaper than the plextor and definitely better).

I cannot stress it far enough but W98 is not an operating system that can make use of SCSI's advantages. If you can install W2K Pro and you will imediately feel the difference (in all aspects, but we talk SCSI here :))

Gotta go, now, I'll come back for the first drive later :)

[G]

Hi Otheos,

Thanks for the analysis of HDD 1s performance statistics. I completely agree with your sentiments regarding using a mult-tasking operating system such as Win2000 Pro. At the following reference

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/vbforums/showthread.php?threadid=163

which includes two replies to previous posts that you replied to, I intimated that I understood that the HDDs will not be able to be pushed to their limits of performance as the Adaptec’s host adapter that I’m using is restrictive. I wonder if that is the reason why while the HDDs are working relatively hard the Adaptec host adapter lets off a pop-tick sound, once in the blue moon, e.g., transferring data from HDD 1 to HDD 2 or vice visa. My primarily reason for choosing these HDDs was because I was more concerned with the integrity of my data and in addition the intention being that these HDDs would be installed in my own built machine soon and that the original IBM 4GB would be installed back in to it. The prospect of building my own machine has been delayed. However, a number of times now you have directed my attention to Win2000 Pro and more and more I’m tempted to upgrade to it.

What puts me off the idea of going to Win2000 Pro is the fact that as an ex-user of WinNT system boot failures were almost impossible to repair. One either needed the expertise to be able to recover to a stable state or expensive software from the likes of Winternals Administrative Pak at about $400, or both. The Emergency Repair Disk (ERD) for WinNT would sometimes make matters worst, having a bug in the ERDs itself made matters more difficult. Hence data was lost and a complete reinstallation was needed. Now Win2000 Pro is closely related to WinNT but would it be as problematic? Secondly, not all utilities and the like that I could use effectively to keep Win98 happy cannot be used on Win2000 Pro or need the Win2000 Pro compatible version. Hence more expense, more money and more time and for what – a faster computer! I do not play games ever, I simply use it to simulate and troubleshoot computer problems on, e.g., data recovery strategies and data loss prevention and so forth, type letters, experiment on generally, and use a couple of mathematics and statistic packages. It would be nice to go to Win2000 Pro and I have thought about it recently but there’s hundreds of hours of hard graft and knowledge getting to know my Win98 set-up. I’m thinking I do not need the time wasted playing with, messing about with and getting completely frustrated and annoyed at Win2000 Pro as I did with Win98 and WinNT in the early days. Please do not think that I’m disregarding your suggestion, I simply do not know whether it’s what I really need now? I don’t know…

If I were to go for a multitasking OS would you recommend Win2000 Pro or WinXP? I’m against WinXP’s WPA so how about Win2000 Pro over WinXP anyway.

Sorry to keep picking your brains, so to speak, Otheos but are there any book gems that you would recommend? For example, on Win2000 Pro’s registry, architecture and so forth. I like the detailed ones. I have a couple in mind.

Thanks again for your help Otheos,
G

[otheos]

I don't blame you at all for being reluctant. I had to go through a learning curve of setting up my unix boxes at home when I moved out of work where everything was administered and I was so busy with real work in the same time, I though I was missing all my deadlines.

There is a bit of learning with Win2K Pro, but only if you intend to use the various services for the more server oriented tasts. Other than that it is identical to W98 apart for some things have moved around but you'll find them.

I have to agree if you can't boot for some reason is difficult to repair with the OS's stubborness to let you past boot screen (or BSOD), and I had problems myself setting up my wifes system. I learned one thing. Troubleshooting is for system integrators not for home users: keep a seperate partition with all your data (my docs / favorites / mail and all), image the OS partition once all your software is installed and if something goes wrong just start over. It takes 3 minutes to go set it back up. However as time passes you get less problems, first because you leave the thing work (rather than mess around with it) and second because you learn.

As for the expense of buying software to keep the OS happy, you don't need to. W2K is far superior to W98 and it can do it's own memory managment. I never liked Norton System Works sort of software anyway, and I always advised against. Like I said, you keep a recent image for cases that things go wrong, and just uninstall don't just delete the folders. You may have specific software in your mind though that cannot talk about :)

WinXP seems to be a bloated version of W2K. So you have the stability + a million things to hog your system. Productively WinXP is inferior to W2K, but it has the impressive GUI that people love. Personally I grew to "hate" MS and I am sligthly biased against them as I always put my morality in front to judge and decide for me, and having seen what MS does I though to myself that it will be politically incorrect to use MS and they definitely do not deserve my money. With all that new activation + digital contnent signing that XP carries I will never suggest it for people to buy as I seriously think it should be boycotted. My argument here though is 100% based on technical grounds and it appears that for hardware you need to use rather than hog, WinXP is definitely not for you. Again take my suggestion with a notice of slight bias :)

Books? I am sure someone will help you out on this if you post a new thread. For my use of Win2K I never needed a book, as I only use it for my home movies that has it's own software (and documentation). My main OS is Linux so I do my reading online :)

I hope this helped :)

[G]

Hi Otheos,

I preferred WinNT to Win98 initially as it had a more sophisticated feel about it – if you know what I mean. Win98 I saw as amateurish to use in comparison to WinNT but at least I wasn’t at the mercy of an unrecoverable system boot failure. Therefore, in time I came to like Win98 for its ease of use. At the end of the day, year <grin>, a computer is to be used, the idea of formatting repeatedly, and the like didn’t appeal to me. I know some users like doing this, masochists’, but I would rather get on with computing or other more productive and constructive activities. I’ve always wanted to get back to WinNT but without the system boot failures. I guess, I hope, that Win2000 Pro is better in this respect. At least, with Win2000 Pro being based around MS Dos, sort of, there is a better chance of recovery from a system boot failure or BSOD.

I do not trust Microsoft’s proclamations that WinXP is the ultimate OS. It sounds more like bloat to me with a fancy looking desktop but there will be those that will be taken in by it all, or those who want the latest products or versions – expensive hobby that. They always fall back on their face in time – M$ that is. It makes me laugh and cringe when reading newsletters from the likes of Win2000 magazine, they seem to brown nose M$ so much. If you have read the Halloween documents, I can understand what you mean about their manipulating activities. I also agree with your sentiments about preferring not to contribute to Microsoft profits and I’ve begun, as many enthusiasts do (assertion on my part), to detest the way they milk and disregard their customers, their heavy handedness, stifling innovation, and indifference to security and stability. I do not think they deserve my money either. If I can get my hands on a Win2000 Pro retail version for nothing or for a fraction of the cost I will go that way. Otheos my old mate, do you know of anyone who has a copy of Win2000 Pro and a CD-RW drive (hint) - only joking. Ultimately, I do not think I will stay with M$ OSes, in time I will move on to something like your set-up. I think there is a movement within the Unix and Linux fraternity. The WPA device, devious mechanisms probably planted in their software for the likes of the NSA and NSC and the like - do I sound paranoid, now where did I put my anti-paranoid medication - was one of the main reasons why I’m glad not to go with WinXP. I wouldn’t suggest WinXP to anyone either. If M$ are listening, tough on their part, because when I set anyone’s computer up they get my copy of Windows and Office. I guess that’s why they implemented WPA but, com’on who can afford multiple copies of an MS OS – not me. With WinXP, this would not be possible unless one can circumnavigate around WPA <grin>.

I really think M$ is going to come unstuck. I do not trust Gates (full time megalomaniac) or M$ and I think as computer users move on up the computing expertise ladder they decline an invitation to join the M$ party/movement. Hence, they move on to Unix and Linux like you. Would you agree, or am I talking out of my gluteus minimus. That’s how I feel anyway. I guess I will dabble with Win2000 Pro and in about 3-5 years say goodbye to M$ for good. I have to keep in with M$ products as I feel compelled to set all those poor computer user souls free from their despair using M$ products.

Incidentally, everything is backed up and partitioned away using PartitionMagic and Drive Image (which are both first class), so no worries there.

Thanks again for your help Otheos.

G
Spelling errors corrected.

[SalaTar]

http://www.salatar.com/hd.gif
just to compare :)
its a 7200 ide drive at ata 66

[otheos]

Ok, this looks like a Quantum AS+ to me (could be an 60GXP though), and there is a bit of an issue with the drivers as I am sure the burst speed readjust to the max STR value after the run, and also the CPU usage is a bit high. Not to worry too much (is this W98?) but you may want to play around with it and see if you can get it any better.





It also looks a bit noisy for my taste, so you can check your cacheing (or fragmentation) but if you try to fix your drivers it shoold get smooth.



What else is on the same cable? it seems the outter part gets limited by something and then it shoots up at about 16GB.

Eventhough I wouldn't really bother since the access times look good, if you got time to spare you may want to try and have it looked at.

[SalaTar]

I have a via issue as its not performing well..Fragged...bigtime..lol
its a maxtor ata133 drive 6LO40J2 40 GIG on my 2k work box...I had the virus on and was working a bit with test...I wish I could get my ata 133 controller

[otheos]

I wish I could get my ata 133 controller
Why? The only reason I see would be to avoid using the VIA onboard (credible reason if you ask me). However the latest rev of the 686B is working very well (unlike the 686A and early B).

Dang I only noticed it was doing 35MB/s at 16GB now, so it has to be a 40GB/platter disk, but the low access time pointed to Quantum (but I guess Quantum did their bit to get the access times that low)

BTW the Quantum LM+ was the fastest IDE drive with a seek time of 7.5ms. So I bought 10 of them and even today (1 year later) no IDE drive matches the speed (eventhoug they do 25MB/s max STR, 20MB/s min)

What else is connected with the drive on the same cable?

[SalaTar]

nothing on same ide cable...
its a biostar vkl (not -b)

[G]

Hi Otheos,

Is there any chance you could analyse my HDD 1 results that you said you would get back to later, for completeness?

SalaTar, it may be a good idea to retest your HDD as my IBM’s (see post above for specs.) obtained erratic results on occasions – best to ignore them if this is the case and start over.

G :-)

[NDC]

Ok, here's what I got for my Seagate Cheetah Ultra-160, 10K 18.2GB hard disk. This disk is partitioned into 4 drives all running NTFS... Is this any good? And why is the CPU utilization so much higher on that IBM SCSI drive? Even my EIDE drives are below 3% when I benchmark them...


http://ndc.digitalmntsnow.com/bbs/HDTach_U160.gif

[G]

Otheos and NDC,

How are you able to post your HD-Tach output’s on this site? If you can show me how, I will post my outputs out too.

G

[NDC]

Just capture the screenshot of the image you want post and then use the [IMG] tags... You'll need to upload the image to a server or a free web image service...

Click edit on my post and you will see how to put in the IMG tag...

[Mntsnow]

actually if you want to "attach" a file you can directly upload to this site if the file is under 50K in size.....

Just make your reply and the click on the "browse" button below the repy window and chose what file you want to attach to your message

[otheos]

Sorry G I have completely forgotten about it :(
Can I wait untill you post a pic of the plot (as it gives more insight to what goes on)?

NDC, your plot looks ok, those sudden drops are due to disk access during the benchmark and all numbers are great except from the burst speed. While not important unless you're sure about your setup look at your cables. LVD cables are VERY sensitive.

[jadison]

http://neotech.8m.net/images/HDTach.jpg
I'd like to know what I can do, to improve these #'s, if there's anything I can do...thanks.

BTW, it's a Western Digital 40GB ATA100/7200RPM dual-booted w/WinME on 1st partition, Mandrake 8 on 2nd partition, and the Linux Swap File on the 3rd partition.

-=jd=-

[otheos]

Your plot looks just fine. Only thing is the burst that is in ATA66 levels (does your motherboard support ata100) but this is nothing to worry about.

Access time of 13.4ms is what the manufacturer claims (13.4-4.7= 8.7ms seek time) and the STR graph is smooth and continuous. The drops are because the drive carries the OS and it is accessed during the test.

[jadison]

does your motherboard support ata100
The motherboard is an MSI K7T Turbo (MS-6330), and yes it supports "Dual bus Master IDE Ultra DMA33/66/100"
You said the burst is in ATA66 levels, how do I change it to ATA100?
Sorry, my knowledge on HD is limited...thanks for the help.

-=jd=-

[otheos]

I wouldn't worry about it as burst speed does not affect performance. It is a good indication the controller/driver allows the drive to breath by showing the available bandwidth and as long as it is higher than the max str you're fine.

If you want to tune, check the BIOS for specific setting on the channel, and try new drivers.

If you use W2K I've found the MS drivers work better than VIA's so try uninstalling the IDE driver.

[G]

Hi Otheos and everyone,

I have tried, on and off since you all posted the information to upload my HDTach output, but I have not been able to do it. It does not matter, they work fine anyway. Otheos thanks for your past help. Mike I got my Powerware 5125 1500I – great product.

G

[otheos]

You can email them to me and I can put them up if you want.

Gald you have it working ;)

[Mntsnow]

Cool...I love my Powerware UPS systems! Glad you enjoying yours :)


G You can directly upload your photo's to the forum using the "attach file" option that is just above the "submit reply" button on the page you use to type a message. It will list a max file size and as long as the image is under that size it will be hosted on my server for you :):busted:

[G]

Thanks for the offer Otheos on the email front and Info Mike but I have tried this all in the past and I cannot see the HDTach output. I will explain to you what I have then you can tell me where, if at all, I am going wrong.

I get the HDTach output on the Desktop. Now if I go the way that you suggest Mike I get the window for browsing files. However, no matter how many times I have tried this way the output is never visible. Otheos, if I use Outlook 98, New Message, Insert, File, the same window for browsing files comes up too. Again, no matter how much I search, no matter how many times I do the HDTach output and browse for it I cannot see it, except, of course on the desktop.

I do not know if I am doing anything wrong. If I did a search, what would the file and file extension be?

Incidentally, your replies where lightning quick. By the time I had sent my reply and within a couple of minutes checked my email accounts for the last time that night I found I had two emails informing me of your replies. So I checked them but reply today. Great job guys.

Otheos, I was reading your post on Yamaha’s CD-RW 3200. I have had a look, and it is held in high regard and sounds like it can do the business. I may have to move over from Plextor in future. I am still looking for an external HDD USB. The Maxtor is the way I was going (thanks for the recommendation) but the one problem is that they do not have a power switch on the box, or do they now, because the review said it has to be switched-on and switched-off, from the mains power outlet. Is this still true? Have you any ideas when the Maxtor 160GB USB is coming to the UK and at what price? If you come across a bargain, can you let me know? Much appreciated. I bought 400 Intenso (because they came in a sleeve unlike Ritek’s) CD-R’s from SVP a couple of weeks ago. Nice price. Did you get my last email with the software list Otheos? You may have answered by not answering (you know what I mean) which is ok but my reply rate to emails sent out to others has been low of late and I am wondering if it is my Hotmail account messing up. On the other hand, it could be the after shave I am using :(

Mike, the Powerware UPS is great. Thanks for the affirmation from past requests. Well constructed and very sound they are too. They do cost quite a lot but they are worth the extra expense, I would say. Moreover, as long as it does what I want it to do to distinction then I am happy with it. And it certainly does that.

All the best,
G

[Mntsnow]

Ahhh I see the problem :)

You first need to "capture" the Screen output from HDTach and save it to an image.

To do this just hit "Ctrl & PrtScn" (Control & print screen) buttons at the same time (this will only capture the "active window" or you can just hit "PrtScn" and get the WHOLE desktop.

Then open up any of your photo editing applications such as MSPaint and then click on EDIT and then choose PASTE and then crop the image as you see fit or just hit "File" and then "save as" and save the image with a name and file type (best is Jpeg or Gif) for pictures on the net as they compress for faster loading.

Once you have done this you will be able to "browse" for the image and upload it to the webserver as I have mentioned before :)

Enjoy

[G]

Aha, so that is how one does it. Thanks Mike. Well here are the HD Tach V2.61 outputs you have all been waiting for in anticipation <grin>

HD 1:
IBM 36LZX 36.7GB U160+ 10 000 Rpm.
Windows OS is Win98 with latest updates and the like. It is partitioned in to three. The primary partition (C) is 7.6GB on which the OS resides and other applications, e.g., MS Word etc. The second partition is the extended partition divided in to two logical drives, (D) 775MB (Win98 swap file) and (E) 1GB (recovery programs reside). All FAT32. The remaining HDD is unallocated.

[G]

HD 2:
IBM 36LZX 36.7GB U160+ 10 000 Rpm.
The remaining three logical drives of the extended partition are: (F) 8GB used to store .wav files for copying to CD, (G) 4GB unused, 12GB is unallocated, (H) 2GB (beta testing backup program), (I) 6GB (Drive Image’s), (J) 2GB for storing my shareware and freeware programs. All FAT2 except for unallocated 12G.