HD advice please...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

John H. wrote:

> I did try again with another person there.But same old story.They wanted
> to know how I knew the drive was bad

A reasonable question.

> and than they wanted me to give
> them a credit card # before they would let me rma it.

To know who you are so they don't get stuck.

> They said if they
> found that the drive was not bad they would send it back to me at my
> cost.

Again, reasonable. Why should they pay if there's nothing wrong with it?

> But as I said that was the only drive I had go bad.So I bought
> another maxtor.But if I have ant problems with it and they wont make it
> right than I will never buy another maxtor again.
> John.H.
>
> kony wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:41:27 GMT, "John H."
>> <jhensleys@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I had a maxtor 40 g. that was only 3 months old when it went bad.I
>>> called maxtor and told them about it.But they just give me the run
>>> around about it and would not give me permission to rma it to them.it
>>> was a retail drive with a 3 year warranty.I have always used maxtor
>>> and this was the first one to go bad.
>>> John.H.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is something missing in your account, it is very easy
>> to get RMA from Maxtor, often they don't even ask about
>> running the diagnostic and/or getting an error code.
>>
>> If they refused you, try again... maybe you just happened
>> upon the "CSR from hell".
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:21:53 GMT, "John H."
<jhensleys@att.net> wrote:

>I did try again with another person there.But same old story.They wanted
>to know how I knew the drive was bad and than they wanted me to give
>them a credit card # before they would let me rma it.They said if they
>found that the drive was not bad they would send it back to me at my
>cost.But as I said that was the only drive I had go bad.So I bought
>another maxtor.But if I have ant problems with it and they wont make it
>right than I will never buy another maxtor again.
>John.H.
>

That is a typical and desireable process.

1) Hard drive has problem.

2) Call Maxtor, provide serial number and CC number.

3) They cross-ship replacement.

4) Pack bad drive in package from cross-shipped drive and
affix email form they'll send, ship it back within 30 days
to avoid being billed for the drive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"JonMaC" <john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
news:cju4pi$ru3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Need a new Hard Drive, currently have Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ATA100
80Gb -
> been v.pleased with it. Will do a complete OS rebuild on new drive, then
use
> 80Gb as secondary storage etc.
>
> Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
> real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??

Nope but you would if you used a 74GB WDC Raptor drive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

>>Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
>>real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
>
>
> Nope but you would if you used a 74GB WDC Raptor drive.

Or had 2 drives in a striped raid.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> Nope but you would if you used a 74GB WDC Raptor drive.

There is a slight difference if you use SATA drives with native command
queuing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:1wC8d.413$E44.290@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> JonMaC wrote:
>
> > Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there
any
> > real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
>
> SATA 150 has a theoretical speed limit of 150MB/s. However, only bursts
can
> acheive that. What bursts, you may ask? Flushing the cache comes to mind.
> Now, consider that the cache is only 8MB large, that happens in an eye
> blink. Now what happens? The drive's performance gets limited by the
> physical transfer speed which is dependent upon drive density, rotational
> speed, and the fragmentation of the disk. Current drives are somewhere
> around 30MB/s.

You mean 60MB/sec.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

>> SATA 150 has a theoretical speed limit of 150MB/s. However, only bursts
> can
>> acheive that. What bursts, you may ask? Flushing the cache comes to mind.
>> Now, consider that the cache is only 8MB large, that happens in an eye
>> blink. Now what happens? The drive's performance gets limited by the
>> physical transfer speed which is dependent upon drive density, rotational
>> speed, and the fragmentation of the disk. Current drives are somewhere
>> around 30MB/s.
>
> You mean 60MB/sec.

No, I mean 30MB/s SUSTAINED physical throughput. That's usually the minimum
throughput for a drive, meaning when the cache is no longer artificially
supporting extra throughput. For a single drive, that's good. The 74GB
Raptor has 42MB/s, and that's outstanding for a single drive. I think the
fastest non-Raptor drive tested to date was the Seagate 7200.7 Plus drive,
with 100GB platters, with 34MB/s sustained throughput.

About 2 years ago, they tried to reach the ceiling of an ATA133 bandwith,
using 4 of the (then) fastest Maxtor (the only one supporting ATA133)
drives in RAID 0, and even compared that to WD and SCSI drives with 4 drive
RAID. The SCSI was the fastest, by a slim margin and won certain tests, but
lost in some, and the WD drives, which were ATA100 were the slowest. The
highest they were able to acheive was 119MB/s sustained throughput on the
ATA133 setup with 4 drives. Drive throughput has increased since then, but
not by that much...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Dee" <dee@home.net> wrote in message news:VUw8d.93

> A1: When I built my Athlon 64 system I switched to 2 Hitachi 80GB SATA
> drives (not using RAID) and I feel my system boots quicker and is more
> responsive with the SATA 150 interface.

It's not SATA vs ATA but possibly the HD model.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Strictly speaking "Striped" is not RAID. Even setting that aside SATA-150
is no better placed than ATA-133 because the drives are still not going to
fill the bus except very briefly on small bursts, such as emptying / filling
the cache.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Gaidheal wrote:

> Strictly speaking "Striped" is not RAID. Even setting that aside SATA-150
> is no better placed than ATA-133 because the drives are still not going to
> fill the bus except very briefly on small bursts, such as emptying /
> filling the cache.

Precisely... And 8MB cache getting emptied/filled @ 133MB/s vs. 150MB/s is
undistinguishable...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Dee" <dee@home.net> wrote in message
news:uTA8d.143$gj1.65@fe61.usenetserver.com...
> BigBird wrote:
>> "Dee" <dee@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:U4A8d.131$3g6.99@fe39.usenetserver.com...
>>
>>>Rob Morley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A1: When I built my Athlon 64 system I switched to 2 Hitachi 80GB SATA
>>>>>drives (not using RAID) and I feel my system boots quicker and is more
>>>>>responsive with the SATA 150 interface.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But you've never used it with PATA drives?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I installed it on PATA, and on SCSI u160, and I like the performance
>>>of the SATAs compared to either PATA or SCSI u160.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A2: I went with the Hitachi drives after reading several reviews of
>>>>>various drive and the Hitachi was rated very highly. But, just like
>>>>>women and cars, not everyone has the same preferences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IBM drives used to get good reviews for performance, noise and price.
>>>>Then they all started to die. Then IBM sold their HD manufacturing
>>>>interests to Hitachi.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm fully aware of the IBM to Hitachi transaction. I've used IBM and
>>>Hitachi drives for years and have been extremely satisfied with the
>>>quality and reliability of the drives.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A3: Although the price is reasonable for the Maxtor, how long is the
>>>>>warranty? Too many of the drives have only a 1 year warranty, or less.
>>>>>Hitachi has a 3 year warranty and I believe someone posted recently
>>>>>that Seagate has a 5 year warranty. I would look for a good warranty
>>>>>period on the product.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've not looked recently but Maxtors always used to come with a three-
>>>>year swap-out warranty, which is really useful as you can salvage data
>>>>onto the replacement drive and you get a box to return the old one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There was a thread on one of the hardware news groups recently where the
>>>individual had a Maxtor die on him and when he tried to RMA it, he was
>>>told the warranty was only 1 year and they would not issue him a RMA.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Maxtor DiamondMax Plus ATA bare drives sold to authorized Distributors
>> and
>> Resellers that have an 8MB cache buffer AND capacities of 120GB or
>> greater
>> will carry a Standard Warranty Period of 3 years. All other DiamondMax
>> Plus
>> drives will carry a Standard Warranty Period of 1 year. "
>>
>>
> And your point is?
>
Is your problem your reading skills or lack of cognitive reasoning?

The above is intended to clarify the position as to available warranties wrt
Maxtor bare (OEM) drives.
It appeared necessary as you seem determined to muddy the waters and
misinform/mislead for some inconceivable reason.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"JonMaC" <john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
news:cju4pi$ru3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Need a new Hard Drive, currently have Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ATA100
80Gb -
> been v.pleased with it. Will do a complete OS rebuild on new drive, then
use
> 80Gb as secondary storage etc.
>
> Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
> real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
> Q2 - What brands are recommended ?? - have been pleased with Seagate so
far
> so am leaning towards that rather tham cheaper Maxtor.
> Q3 - Komplete have a deal for today - Maxtor Diamandmax 10 200Gb SATA for
> £77 (UKP 77) - any good ??
>
> Speedy response re: Q3 obviously appreciated.
> PC specs - Barton 2500, MSI KT6V mobo, 512Mb RAM, 80GB Seagate Barracuda
>
> Thanks JonMaC
>
Thanks for all responses - although all i can really make out is to keep
clear of Maxtor, which I was probably going to anyway - and that no real
speed increase.
Any more useful advice would be appreciated
Thanks jonmaC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <ck0mv5$m9d$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "JonMaC"
john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com says...
>
> "JonMaC" <john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
> news:cju4pi$ru3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > Need a new Hard Drive, currently have Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ATA100
> 80Gb -
> > been v.pleased with it. Will do a complete OS rebuild on new drive, then
> use
> > 80Gb as secondary storage etc.
> >
> > Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
> > real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
> > Q2 - What brands are recommended ?? - have been pleased with Seagate so
> far
> > so am leaning towards that rather tham cheaper Maxtor.
> > Q3 - Komplete have a deal for today - Maxtor Diamandmax 10 200Gb SATA for
> > £77 (UKP 77) - any good ??
> >
> > Speedy response re: Q3 obviously appreciated.
> > PC specs - Barton 2500, MSI KT6V mobo, 512Mb RAM, 80GB Seagate Barracuda
> >
> > Thanks JonMaC
> >
> Thanks for all responses - although all i can really make out is to keep
> clear of Maxtor, which I was probably going to anyway - and that no real
> speed increase.
> Any more useful advice would be appreciated

Quick summary:
Seagate is flavour of the month. Maxtor is OK, and there's not a
problem with warranty on their big 8MB cache drives.
If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
The rated speed of the interface is the burst speed - sustained transfer
rate and seek time can both have a large effect on actual performance
depending on the nature of disk use.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bce01fd84440e6698a082@news.individual.net...
> In article <ck0mv5$m9d$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "JonMaC"
> john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com says...
> >
> > "JonMaC" <john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
> > news:cju4pi$ru3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > Need a new Hard Drive, currently have Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ATA100
> > 80Gb -
> > > been v.pleased with it. Will do a complete OS rebuild on new drive,
then
> > use
> > > 80Gb as secondary storage etc.
> > >
> > > Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there
any
> > > real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
> > > Q2 - What brands are recommended ?? - have been pleased with Seagate
so
> > far
> > > so am leaning towards that rather tham cheaper Maxtor.
> > > Q3 - Komplete have a deal for today - Maxtor Diamandmax 10 200Gb SATA
for
> > > £77 (UKP 77) - any good ??
> > >
> > > Speedy response re: Q3 obviously appreciated.
> > > PC specs - Barton 2500, MSI KT6V mobo, 512Mb RAM, 80GB Seagate
Barracuda
> > >
> > > Thanks JonMaC
> > >
> > Thanks for all responses - although all i can really make out is to keep
> > clear of Maxtor, which I was probably going to anyway - and that no real
> > speed increase.
> > Any more useful advice would be appreciated
>
> Quick summary:
> Seagate is flavour of the month. Maxtor is OK, and there's not a
> problem with warranty on their big 8MB cache drives.
> If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
> The rated speed of the interface is the burst speed - sustained transfer
> rate and seek time can both have a large effect on actual performance
> depending on the nature of disk use.

Thanks Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

JonMaC wrote:
>>Q1 - Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
>>real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??
>
>>Q3 - Komplete have a deal for today - Maxtor Diamandmax 10 200Gb SATA for
>>£77 (UKP 77) - any good ??
>
> Thanks for all responses - although all i can really make out is to keep
> clear of Maxtor, which I was probably going to anyway - and that no real
> speed increase.

I've got one of the drives you mention. I previously ran XP on a
Western Digital WD800JB (ATA100/8MB Cache) and got 33MB/s. I'm now
running a DiamondMax 10 and get 48MB/s. Yes it makes a noticable speed
increase and would wholeheartedly recommend that Maxtor drive.

FWIW, I got mine from Tekheads.co.uk for a similar price to that and
would recommend Tekheads too.

Cheers,


Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:21:53 GMT, "John H."
> <jhensleys@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I did try again with another person there.But same old story.They
>> wanted to know how I knew the drive was bad and than they wanted me
>> to give them a credit card # before they would let me rma it.They
>> said if they found that the drive was not bad they would send it
>> back to me at my cost.But as I said that was the only drive I had go
>> bad.So I bought another maxtor.But if I have ant problems with it
>> and they wont make it right than I will never buy another maxtor
>> again.
>> John.H.
>>
>
> That is a typical and desireable process.
>
> 1) Hard drive has problem.
>
> 2) Call Maxtor, provide serial number and CC number.
>
> 3) They cross-ship replacement.
>
> 4) Pack bad drive in package from cross-shipped drive and
> affix email form they'll send, ship it back within 30 days
> to avoid being billed for the drive.

And pay for the postage and insurance to return the drive to them (£10 in my
case).

Hmm.

John.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

> If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.


Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a multi-drive
RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the fastest
of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.

> The rated speed of the interface is the burst speed - sustained transfer
> rate and seek time can both have a large effect on actual performance

The actual performance is totally controlled by the sustained transfer rate
and the average access time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Paul Hopwood" <paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote in message
news:nga8m053pav1fufmrd75hamm4mdtrn1nc6@4ax.com...

> Little or no difference. Current SATA drives are mechanically
> identical to the ATA equivalents and the bottle neck is the speed at
> which you can physically lift/write the data from/to the drive
> surface, not the speed of the interface. While SATA has greater
> bandwidth than conventional parallel ATA neither is fully utilised by
> current drives. You might see slightly improved performance during
> burst tests for cached data but they'll be otherwise similar.

Don't forget the average access time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <jmY8d.671128$Gx4.471061@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
>
> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> > then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
>
>
> Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a multi-drive
> RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the fastest
> of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.

But the drives don't have exclusive use of the PCI bus - gigabit
ethernet can saturate the PCI bandwidth on its own.
>
> > The rated speed of the interface is the burst speed - sustained transfer
> > rate and seek time can both have a large effect on actual performance
>
> The actual performance is totally controlled by the sustained transfer rate
> and the average access time.
>
The actual performance is totally determined by the pattern of disk use
- in some situations cache size and interface speed are the only
determining factors (probably not significant in a real world situation
but they can occur).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bce81d661fcb17198a08b@news.individual.net...
> In article <jmY8d.671128$Gx4.471061@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> >
> > "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> > > then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
> >
> >
> > Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a
multi-drive
> > RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the
fastest
> > of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.
>
> But the drives don't have exclusive use of the PCI bus - gigabit
> ethernet can saturate the PCI bandwidth on its own.

Right, if gigabit is on the PCI bus where it is NOT on many recent mobos.

Clearly it's better that neither the ATA nor gigibit controllers are on
the 32bit 33.3MHz PCI bus. But in average workstation usage for single
drive SATA on the PCI bus will provide good performance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:14:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
>> If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
>> then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
>
>
>Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a multi-drive
>RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the fastest
>of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.

Nope, that's only true in isolated benchmarks. Otherwise
it's quite typical to have at least "some" traffic, and
often it's typical to have too much on PCI bus. Hence
PCI-Express.

The PCI bus can be limiting for even a median performing
single new drive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <tM%8d.671750$Gx4.535247@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
>
> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bce81d661fcb17198a08b@news.individual.net...
> > In article <jmY8d.671128$Gx4.471061@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > >
> > > "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> > > > then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a
> multi-drive
> > > RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the
> fastest
> > > of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.
> >
> > But the drives don't have exclusive use of the PCI bus - gigabit
> > ethernet can saturate the PCI bandwidth on its own.
>
> Right, if gigabit is on the PCI bus where it is NOT on many recent mobos.

Earlier you wrote "the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is
in a multi-drive RAID 0 configuration". I was just pointing out that
this might not be so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bceab1320dcb34598a093@news.individual.net...
> In article <tM%8d.671750$Gx4.535247@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> >
> > "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bce81d661fcb17198a08b@news.individual.net...
> > > In article
<jmY8d.671128$Gx4.471061@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net says...
> > > >
> > > > "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the
southbridge
> > > > > then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a
> > multi-drive
> > > > RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the
> > fastest
> > > > of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.
> > >
> > > But the drives don't have exclusive use of the PCI bus - gigabit
> > > ethernet can saturate the PCI bandwidth on its own.
> >
> > Right, if gigabit is on the PCI bus where it is NOT on many recent
mobos.
>
> Earlier you wrote "the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is
> in a multi-drive RAID 0 configuration".

Right, read the thread title. Here's what the OP said in his OP: "Q1 -
Would i notice a speed increase if I went SATA 150 ?? are there any
real world benefits to SATA other than thinner cables ??"

In that context my answer was correct.

> I was just pointing out that
> this might not be so.

And in context you were mistaken or trolling or both.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:m979m0l371gvn4f0h2hacmicmfl750sahh@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:14:07 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> If your motherboard doesn't have a SATA controller on the southbridge
> >> then the bandwidth will be limited by the PCI bus anyway.
> >
> >
> >Well, the only time that there will be any PCI limiting is in a
multi-drive
> >RAID 0 configuration. The PCI bus can do about 100MB/sec. and the
fastest
> >of today's SATA drives do about 60MB/sec.
>
> Nope, that's only true in isolated benchmarks.

Wrong again.

> Otherwise
> it's quite typical to have at least "some" traffic, and
> often it's typical to have too much on PCI bus. Hence
> PCI-Express.

Yes and the AGP before it.

> The PCI bus can be limiting for even a median performing
> single new drive.

NOT under ordinary usage since current drives do about 60MB/sec. max.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:01:29 -0400, Ruel Smith
<NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:

>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
>>> SATA 150 has a theoretical speed limit of 150MB/s. However, only bursts
>> can
>>> acheive that. What bursts, you may ask? Flushing the cache comes to mind.
>>> Now, consider that the cache is only 8MB large, that happens in an eye
>>> blink. Now what happens? The drive's performance gets limited by the
>>> physical transfer speed which is dependent upon drive density, rotational
>>> speed, and the fragmentation of the disk. Current drives are somewhere
>>> around 30MB/s.
>>
>> You mean 60MB/sec.
>
>No, I mean 30MB/s SUSTAINED physical throughput. That's usually the minimum
>throughput for a drive, meaning when the cache is no longer artificially
>supporting extra throughput. For a single drive, that's good. The 74GB
>Raptor has 42MB/s, and that's outstanding for a single drive. I think the
>fastest non-Raptor drive tested to date was the Seagate 7200.7 Plus drive,
>with 100GB platters, with 34MB/s sustained throughput.

There may've been something wrong with the test then, I can
exceed 35GB/s even coping over a LAN with single drive, a
few-GB sized file is certainly NOT being cached when there
was no prior access to it until the copy.

>
>About 2 years ago, they tried to reach the ceiling of an ATA133 bandwith,
>using 4 of the (then) fastest Maxtor (the only one supporting ATA133)
>drives in RAID 0, and even compared that to WD and SCSI drives with 4 drive
>RAID. The SCSI was the fastest, by a slim margin and won certain tests, but
>lost in some, and the WD drives, which were ATA100 were the slowest. The
>highest they were able to acheive was 119MB/s sustained throughput on the
>ATA133 setup with 4 drives. Drive throughput has increased since then, but
>not by that much...

119MB/s is an ATA133 and/or PCI limit, not because the
drives couldn't go any faster.