• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About onebyte

  • Rank
  1. onebyte

    Disappointed with SATA 2

    Thanks Guys, I appreciate the feedback. I do realize that the purely technical aspect of faster specs has an appeal of its own. And that servers and corporate websites need the added speed on multidisk RAIDS. I do have a modest RAID 0 setup on my OS/boot drive, and enjoy the added speed, but my point is that I could do the same thing (I think) with 133 2 PATA drives in a RAID setup. So why the need for SATA? NVidia RAID allows you to RAID PATA drives as well as SATAs. I'm just guessing, but I suspect I'd be able to get about the same 98/99 GB/s transfer rates from a PATA RAID 0 setup as from my current SATA2 rig. I wonder if anyone has tried this? Again, I'm not complaining about the new technologies. I think progress is great! It's just that for the home user the reality doesn't come close to the hype. Now one benefit of SATA that I've obtained is the ability to hook up external drives with a sata cable rather than USB2 or Firewire. For reasons I don't quite understand yet that does give me a real world data transfer increase when backing up or storing large files, like ISO files for instance. I think my increase with the sata cable was about 2x or 3x over USB2 and a PATA interface. Until I ran HD Tach on that external USB2 drive I hadn't realized it was so much slower than my internals or SATA external. Anyhow, I'm just finishing this new build and I'm pretty happy with it. I'm just not sure I shouldn't have spent more money on larger Pata or Sata1 harddrives instead of getting the smaller Sata2's. Cheers,
  2. onebyte

    Disappointed with SATA 2

    Thanks for yoru reply, but that is exactly the conclusion I'm reaching, and my question remains the same: What's the point of spending more money for a faster interface if the electromechanical limitations of the disks can not take advantage of the added speed? If the HD speed bottleneck is the physical capabilities of the disk, then why all the hype aver the advanctages of SATA and SATA 2 over PATA? I spend quite a bit of time trying to look into these things before I spring for a new system, but I'm only finding this out in retrospect, AFTER I bought all the new hardware that doesn't seem to be any real-world improvement over the older stuff. I just find it strange that so few people seem to realize that there is so little, if any, real world performance gains from the new SATA 2 standard. In fact, I just unlocked the new Hitachi 160 GB drive and expected to see a real world increase over the 150 it comes set at. What I got was zilch for an increase. Exactly the same for the 300 MB/s transfer speed as for the 150 that it's shipped with. Zip, 0, Nada... So what's the point of spending more money for SATA 2 Disks?
  3. onebyte

    HDD Partitions and Drive Letter Question

    Sang, Windows setup sees your disks as they are seen in your bios. You can install win xp 64 to any primary partition you want. I'm really unsure as to why your computer set up your disks in this fashion, although I know it sees PATA disks ahead of SATAs, but you could probably change this simply by having only one disk in your computer when you originally install windows and then adding the extra disks one at a time.... ...although I really don't know how this would make any practical difference over what xSTLx told you to do. After you load windows 64 you can still rename any partition you want and reassign any drive letter to it. Best wishes,
  4. I'm new to using anything but EIDE Parallel ATA hard drives. I'm a basic desktop /laptop user, and I thought that when I upgraded to a new DIY built system with SATA and SATA2 hard drives I'd see a dramatic increase in performance that involved disk intensive reads and writes, transfers between disks, and so on. I'm disappointed that the reality doesnt begin to live up to all the hype and hoopla, although by now you'd think I'd know better than to expect that. Talk about 150 MB/s transfer rates for SATA or 300 MB/s for Sata 2 is greatly exaggerated. I'm finding that my actual sustained read write times are in the 50 MB/s range with both SATA 1 and 2, and that is also disappointing. There seems to be absolutely no real world gain by going to SATA 2 over SATA 1. Apparently, I am discovering, what no one is talking about is that there is an electro-mechanical limit to the physical ability for disk reads and writes, and no increase in data transmission rates can speed up that bottleneck or surpass that physical limitation. So what is the point in spending considerably more money for Sata 2 disks over standard ATA or Ultra ATA 100 or 133 disks? The SATAs register about the same IO as the Ultra ATAs on my HD Tach meter. Granted that the burst rate is much higher, but that doesn't seem to translate into much higher real time sustained IO transfer rates. Or am I missing something? I just set up a NVidia GeForce 4 SLI system with NVidia SATA/RAID onboard and I'm getting about 90 MB/s average IO with raid 0 and two Hitachi 80 GB 7tk250's in tandem. It's certainly an improvement over a single disk, but I'm not sure if the added speed is work the risk, or that the added expense is justified. Then I have two other Hitachi's that I've been comparing in my new system. One is a SaTA 150 and the other a nearly identical SATA 2. They both get about the same benchmarks at about 45 MB/s average and 120 burst, about equal to an ATA 133. What;s the point of spending more $$ for SATA 2 if there is no improvement in speed over a SATA 1 disk & controller? Or for that matter over even an ATA 100 or 133? Am I doing something wrong in the way I'm setting these disks up? Should these numbers be higher? Yes, the new RAID 0 setup does boot up and load applications about 40% faster, but that's not what I spent all that additional money to achieve at the cost of no fault tolerance. I'm just a newbie at all this, and hopefully I'll discover I'm doing something wrong. But so far I'm very unimpressed with any slight gains I'm seeing from SATA 2 over SATA 1 or even PATA. It seems to me that a PATA RAID would turn in about the same performance as a SATA. Yes? No? Just a few cents worth from a newbie...
  5. onebyte

    New raptor doesn't want to go

    Maybe you should do what I just did: trash the NSW 2005 and Ghost 9. I've used, or tried to use Norton for the past 15 years or more, but never again. I now use Acronis True Image 8, build 903 for my imaging needs and it works just fine with my raid 0 stripe boot disk that gave Norton & Ghost 9 fits. Besides being a resource & memory hog, all Norton ever did for me is cause more problems than it fixes. I've found replacements for everything I ever used Norton for, and my system is running better and faster than ever, and using half the resources it required under Norton. I've just spent a week with a clueless Norton tech support trying to get Ghost 9 to boot into a recovery mode with my raid 0 setup, and Acronis worked the first try, every time, and doens't have to even boot into a recovery disk to complete a restore... just a virtual drive it creates before leaving windows. Never again with the Norton. Onebyte MSI 929 K8N Neo Platinum 4 SLI MoBo , Athlon 64 3200+ Venice CPU , MSI NVidia GEForce 6800 256mb PCI-Express Video Card, 2 Hitachi 7K80 SATA II 7200 RPM 80G HD/8MB Buffer in sata/raid 0, Windows XP Pro SP2, Corsair TwinX 1024-3200XL XMS DDR Dual Channel Xtra-low latency memory, 2-2-2-5, 1G (2x512) Antec P-160 Aluminum Mid-Tower Case w/removable mobo tray, Antec SmartPower 2.0 SP-450W Power Supply, max outputs of +5V=30A, +12V(1)=15A. +12V(2)=17A, +3.3=32A, -12=0.3, +5Vsb=2.0A, Lite-on SOHW 1693S 16X Dual DVD-CD +-RW IDE burner,