• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HamaZ

  1. Hello! I have an Adaptec 29160 SCSI HBA (Ultra160 SCSI) sitting in a PCI 33/32 bus slot. It has two Cheeatsh 15K.4 and one Cheetah 10K.6 connected on the LVD segment by a U320 SCSI cable. All drives are working in U160 LVD mode. The chipset is Intel i815, and the CPUs are two Pentium 3 Tualatin-S at 1400 MHz. All drives are independent (no RAID). The read STR speeds are excellent, and every drive's read STR corresponds to the STR measured by StorageReview in its initial review of that drive model. The burst speeds (measured by HDTach 3.01) on Cheetahs 15K.4 are 113 MB/s, so it seems that the PCI bus has no performance issues (like it usually does on crappy VIA chipsets). However, the write performance on any drive is rather bad. I can not acheve higher throughput than around 33-38 MB/s (I tested this by copying large files from one drive to another, etc.). I used Seagate's SeaTools Enterprise to verify that all drives have Read and Write caching ON, and that they work in "Performance" (desktop oriented) caching mode. Does anybody have any idea why is write throughput low, and how could I improve it? I would expect to be able to acheve around 55 MB/s (if the real troughput of the PCI bus is 110 MB/s). P.S.: Don't nuke me because I value STR so much. I know everything about hard drive performance(s), and STR IS important for this setup, since I mostly move around LARGE files and do fast video montage (cutting & merging).
  2. Is there anybody who knows the solution to this issue? I thought that, since this controller was very common, there must be people who have experienced the same.
  3. HamaZ

    Bad sectors

    Hi to every reader. I allways wanted to investigate the --exact phisycal nature-- of those hard drives' "bad" sectors, because there are many myths and mis-definitions of them (one says that bad sector is a sector where a virus "died", so it is like a grave Let's consider both magnetic media types, oxyde and TFT. We all know that some bad sectors can be repaired (or "refreshed") either by low level format or by some special utilities like that Russian program "HDD Regenerator". But most bad sectors are just BAD. (By the way, I've used HDD Regenerator on a few hard drives and it really did repair bad sectors on some of them, which couldn't be repaired by LLF. Is it really functional and how?) I will suggest two types of bad sectors (my definition): 1.) Natural ones 2.) Artificial ones Natural ones are a consequence of a magnetic media geting weaker over time, and other hard drive weaknesses involved with time process. The natural bad sectors usually have tendency to spread, and they usually can not be repaired (even if they can, they return after a short period - the magnetic media is just too weak). Artificial ones are a consenquence of a shock, like a power outtage or a current shock during a R/W operations, or from a direct contact between heads and platters due to mechanical shock etc. The artificial bad sectors usually don't spread further (they are isolated cases) and they can usually be repaired very succesfully. Are my definitions all right? And now, is a bad sector actually a portion of magnetic media which has lost it's magnetic properties (like magnetic permeability, magnetic resistance and specifical histeresis pattern) and can not be magnetically polarized anymore? If not, what is it then? I hope there are some phisycans here with us, except me:)
  4. Hello. I heard (and read in several topics in this forum) that most 64-bit PCI SCSI *RAID* controllers (from Adaptec, LSI, Mylex, etc.) do not behave well at all when used on a regular 32b/33MHz PCI bus. According to my hearings/readings, they work, but performance is unnaturally slow (card's bandwidth tops at around 20-40 MB/s). AFAIK, PCI bus should put trough 100-110 MB/s in practice. Is this generally true, or maybe those people had some incompatibilities etc.? But this issue may not be applicable to non-RAID PCI64 SCSI HBAs, and that is my main question here. I intend to acquire Adaptec AHA-39160 (PCI64 dual-channel U160 non-RAID HBA) and to run it on a regular PCI 32/33 bus. Will the card's troughput match the actual troughput of my PCI bus, or will it drop dramatically (to how many MB/s)?
  5. HamaZ

    PCI64 SCSI HBAs on PCI32 bus

    Thank you for the reply. Other PCI cards are not of any concern, because they are rarely used at the same time as the disk subsystem, so it can be said that the SCSI card would have the PCI bus mostly free for itself. So, the only concern is if the card will actually be able to take advantage of PCI 33/32 bus. My questions from the first post still remain active.
  6. Hello! Long time no write. Nor read. Anyway, I have several old SCA SCSI hard drives. Most of them are LVD/SE (Ultra2 I suppose), and a few older ones are SE only. I would like to use them, but I do not have SCA adapters (80 to 68 pin). My search on Ebay for "SCSI SCA" (ordered by lowest price ascesending) revealed that it is pracitally flooded with those "unidrive" SCA adapters (by unidrive I mean that the adapter has only one SCA connector, therefore attaching only one SCA drive to one 68-pin cable connector). All those adapters from all sellers seem to be the exact same design. Here is a random example: http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-SCA-80-ADAPTER-TO-...1QQcmdZViewItem Does anybody know if this particular adapter model is any good? And does it support LVD operation (AFAIK, SE-only SCA and LVD/SE SCA adapters are significantly different, although they look the same, right?)? I read on a few places in this forum that any unidrive SCA adapter sucks. It this true? If it is, then what the |-|ell should I use to connect these drives to the rest of the world?
  7. Hello! I have Adaptec AHA-29160LP (low profile) card which has only one internal connector, HD68. I have one HDD attached (7200 RPM, nothing exhalting), but I want to attach two CD-ROM drives too. The problem is that I forgot what are the issues when mixing wide and narrow devices on a wide bus. I know that termination gets complicated. And I know that this will drop me to Ultra Wide speed (SE), but I can live with that just fine. I do not have any 68f-50f adapter, but I will need two of them to make this work. Now the problem is the termination of the upper byte. How can I determine if a particular 68f-50f adapter terminates the high byte if it is NOT written on it? Most wide/narrow SCSI adapters to not have any inscriptions on them. Regards
  8. Thank you very much for this fine explanation. Well, I would like to sell these drives on the local market, but I can't because all interested buyers ask for a "complete" solution (controller, cable, etc.). I have all that except the damn SCA adapter(s). Now I'm stuck with these drives until I find a connection between them and the rest of the world. I tried to find some old servers for trash (which hopefully have bays for SCA drives), and salvage SCA backplanes from them. But most those backplanes are proprietary designs which either don't fit in a standard HDD cage or use special power connectors .... By the way, how to tell if a SCA adapter/backplane is SE-only or LVD/SE if it is not written on it?
  9. HamaZ

    Adaptec AHA-2940UW problem

    I agree with you.
  10. I have acquired an Adaptec AHA-2940UW Ultra-Wide SCSI HBA. It's BIOS version is 1.34.3. The card came with some very wierd settings (HBA ID 15, boot ID 15, SCAM ON, ext INT13 OFF, multi LUN ON etc. I have of course tried to change this, but changes do not get saved when I exit setup / restart the machine. I have also tried with F6 - reset everything to default, but even that does not help. After the system restarts, the card retains its old "crazy" settings. Any ideas what causes this and how could it be resolved?
  11. HamaZ

    Adaptec AHA-2940UW problem

    Well the controller is most probably a retail edition. I have downloaded a BIOS update (v2.20) from Adaptec's web site. I have performed the update by the book, but after the flashing the program exited with an error message 8. That meant that it could not verify ROM image. Anyway, I performed a hard reset, but after that the HBA did not appear after the POST. That was bad. But the good thing was that the flashing program automatically saved the old BIOS version onto a floppy, and there is a BAT file for restoring it. When I started it, it exited with an error that my card does not have a BIOS. Looks like I have damaged it's BIOS. If someone know a way to recover the HBA, tell me. If this is it, then I will trash it. It was bad anyway. I am a bit dissapointed why did the update procedure fail if the card is retail, and why was it's BIOS "locked" in the first place?
  12. HamaZ

    Adaptec AHA-2940UW problem

    I really did not check that. What is the best way to discover that without having to dig the PC out of from desk and opening it? Is it a dead end in case if it is an OEM?
  13. HamaZ

    Adaptec AHA-2940UW problem

    I intend to use this HBA only for some testing and temporary storage of some stuff on a pair of 9GB UW hard drives, so it does not matter if the controller is not modern. I will try to flash it, but I was curious if there was some hidden setting or something which prevents any modification to the BIOS setup.
  14. Hi to every reader. I use "DirectCD 5.0" packet writing software. It is installed on my secondary machine, where my CD writer is also installed. OS is Windows NT4. I format a CD, write some data onto it, and eject it with "UDF 1.5" seal. That means that such a CD is writable by any PC which also has DirectCD (and CD writer) installed. It is also READABLE by any PC which has an UDF 1.5 reader installed. If a PC does not have it, then when such a CD is inserted, that machine will only see one two files on it: autorun.inf and UDF installer file. The installer willl start automatically and offer UDF to be installed. After it is installed, that PC will properly read UDF discs. - -This is a rough quote of what DirectCD says. If I remember correctly, only Windows 95 and Windows NT do not support UDF at all. They need such a reader to be installed first. Win98(SE) supports UDF, but I am not sure does it support v1.5. WinMe, Win2000 and WinXP should natively support all UDFs. Is this correct? This is the problem which I have: I have made two such CDs, and I have tried them on my primary PC which has only a DVD-ROM drive. Win98SE and Win2000 (SP4+) are installed in dual mode. Win98SE reads all discs with no problems (it seems that I have installed Adaptec UDF reader sometime in the past), but in Win2000 I can only see one file: "Non-Allocable Disk" of zero bytes in size. The label of CD is correct though. When I enter CD's properties, it says that it is an UDF CD, 576MB capacity with zero bytes free. What is the problem?? I have also tried these CDs on another PC with Win95 OSR2. At first it only saw the embedded UDF installer, but after I installed it, I could access UDF as promised.
  15. HamaZ

    Win2000 and UDF CDs

    Well this is something. Where have you got this information from? I am a bit confused. You gave me two links. One is a direct link to download Adaptec's UDF reader, and another is a link of Roxio's UDF reader's documentation. Is Adaptec = Roxio in this case? If not, which one to use? Which is better (more "worldwide standard")? BTW, since there is no link to download Roxio's UDF reader on the page you provided, I have searched their site and have fount this: http://www.roxio.com/en/support/ecdc/softw...datesv4_2.jhtml This is the version 7.1. Note that the newest version mentioned on the page you linked is 5.01. It also seems that this new version does not cover 95 and NT, so I may discard it as potential solution. Note that I have still not found a link to download Roxio UDF reader 5.01. Maybe I should not if Adaptec's one is the best? I am waiting for your opinions about this. I will also perform some testings about this tommorrow.
  16. Hi to every reader. I have read that there are two types of Wide-to-Narrow SCSI adapters (68 to 50pin, the unes used to connect a narrow device like CDROM to Wide SCSI chain). The first type is the one which does not terminate high byte, and the other type is the one which DOES terminate high byte of the 16-bit wide bus. The first type is used to connect a narrow device in the middle of the wide chain. The second type is used when someone wants to terminate a wide chain with narrow device, or more often, when someone wants to connect a completely narrow chain to Wide controller's Wide port. Am I right about this? Anyway, this is not my question. The question is, how to physically differ these two types of adapters? I have found a few different ones in a friend's garage lying in a tin can. I could make a good use of them, but I must first know is each of them completely pass-trough or does it has embedded high terminator. None of them has any label or meaningfull description on it.
  17. HamaZ

    Wide-to-Narrow SCSI adapters

    I have never heard of those two programs, but I will definitely check them. Thank you for the information. Are those programs general-purpose SCSI software, or are they related to some specific hardware (adaptec controllers only, perhaps)?
  18. HamaZ

    Wide-to-Narrow SCSI adapters

    OK, but how to see that?
  19. So it is pros instead of prons. Big deal Thank you for this information. I really did not know that prons stands for porn. That's news for me . Sometimes I happen to get into trouble when discussing on foreign forums because of such word "collisions". Language is a tricky thing.
  20. Hi to every reader. I have got an offer from a friend of a friend. He offers me a second-hand LCD monitor, Eizo FlexScan L675. The price is 190EUR, what is a very fine price for such a thing in my country. I have to decide fast, or someone else will buy it. The problem is that I know very little about LCDs, so I need advices from people whos knowledge about LCDs is profound. In short, can you check this monitor's specifications and tell me what is good and what is bad about it? I will tell you what I want out of a monitor: I am looking for a high-quality LCD monitor, and I suppose that Eizo is a candidate for that. I really appreciate quality above all. I don't care much about the features like USB hubs or so (however I would need a dual video input). But physical quality and screen quality is crucial. I DO NOT want ghosts and dead pixels and whatever else. My "interaction" with PC consists mostly of: 1) Reading literature (PDF, HTML, etc.) and programming, so it takes about 60-70% of the time. I really read a lot. 2) I also occasionally do video editing from my DV camera, and I watch DVD movies, so count that about 20-30%. 3) I also regularly play a game every day, at least a half an hour per day. So that takes only about 10-20%, but I don't want to chase screen ghosts in UT2004. 4) I often visit DOS, BIOS, Win95 in Safe mode and other low-res environments. But I suppose that is fine for an LCD? Now here are a couple of links to get you started. If you could figure out in which year(s) this monitor was actual, I would also appreciate that info too. http://www.eizo.com/Support/discontinued/lcd/l675.asp http://www.eizo.com/downloads/brochures/pdf/l675.pdf http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Eizo_Nanao_Fl...44.html?tag=nav http://tweakers.net/nieuws/21199 http://www.tomshardware.com/newsletter/vol...0_flexscan.html
  21. I did not say that this monitor is absolutely bad, I said that it's characteristics are not suitable for me. I did not know that it is suited for industrial use before I asked this on the Internet. That is why I asked people about it. As for "prons and cons", I've read that fraze on multiple places on the Internet (English is not my native language), and as I understood, "prons and cons" means "virtues and flaws" or "good things and bad things about a particular thing". Please correct me if I am mistaken.
  22. I have decided not to buy the monitor in the meantime. That is because I asked this same queston/post on another forum, and some people who really know stuff aboud LCDs told me cons and prons. In short, this monitor has very high persistency of 25ms and 78ms turnarond (I may not be precise, but I'm in hurry), uses TN panel (bad for movies), is probably 6-bit and is quite old (like y2000-2001). But thank you for your post, of course.
  23. I invite members of this forum to give a straight answer to a simple question. I need some statistics for my studying refferat. I will appreciate all feedback. I consider this forum the one with mostly IT-educated members, to let us see what do you think: QUESTION: Which, of the two offered ones, is the correct resolution for a PC monitor: a) 1280x960 1280x1024 Please just answer "a" or "b". And to NOT go googling and informing yourself before you decide!! Just answer what you think is correct in this very moment. P.S.: I really hate these smileys. They are for kids in playgardens.
  24. HamaZ

    A survey: What is correct:

    P.S.: This short reply is intended to Phoenix.
  25. HamaZ

    A survey: What is correct:

    I am not sure if I've got your point here. But know this: I am not payed for this debate, and intially I did not want it to transform into debate in the first place. That is because I do not have time these days for such things. I am using my precious small spare time to write this stuff. I could lay in bed in eleven o'clock and get some proper sleep, but instead I wrote this stuff so now I will lay just after midnight, and I won't fall asleep before quarter to one. I am not sitting a whole day in front of Internet Explorer and surfing hardware review sites and online forums like the fiddle teenagers, you know.