Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:57:20 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: =?windows-1252?Q?=3F=3F=3F_Bill_Hacker?= <askbill@conducive.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Wiki for discussing P35/IHC9(R)/SATA issues set up Message-ID: <47308EE0.70600@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <47308AFB.9090000@conducive.net> References: <472EB211.7050001@delphij.net> <472EEADF.1000008@gmail.com> <472F466E.8050405@delphij.net> <472F5846.1020304@gmail.com> <472F5D9A.9050900@delphij.net> <472FCC15.9040903@gmail.com> <472FD0FB.9090608@delphij.net> <473001E7.2090201@yandex.ru> <473017DF.7070105@gmail.com> <62151.71.164.232.42.1194356793.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com> <20071106144749.GA91218@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <47525.209.159.98.1.1194362930.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com> <47308AFB.9090000@conducive.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
??? Bill Hacker wrote: > Rusty Nejdl wrote: >>> Does SATA300, but has the same "feature" as the OP's Seagate drive: >>> a small jumper that limits the drive to SATA150 unless removed. >>> See below PDF. >>> >>> http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e2af99f4fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US >>> >>> http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371h.pdf >>> >>> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks! Like Aryeh, I missed the jumper. I'll test this out tonight >> when >> I get home. >> >> Rusty >> > BTW - in a recent test of 2.5" high-capacity HDD, it was noted that SATA > required significantly more power than PATA. Well 'significant' to a > laptop on battery, anyway. > Yes, this is because the SATA physical interface is always transmitting a signal, i.e. it has 100% duty cycle, whereas PATA tri-states when it's not active and typically has a 10-20% duty cycle even when active. It's a well understood issue in the SATA world, and drives and controllers are starting to appear on the market that address it. > Given that single-drive setups seldom stress even UDMA 133 over the > course of reasonable time spans, does anyone know if: > > A) SATA 300 needs yet-again more power than SATA 150? Yes, it's a higher frequency so it draws more power. > > B) running down-shifted to SATA 150 might actually be a better plan > anyway in some circumstances? A little better, but still not as good as being able to put the signal to an idle state. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47308EE0.70600>