UDMA-5 instead of 6; why?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hello group,

I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
drive).
1 PATA drive with data on it.
No RAID.

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

Thanks,

Navid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
nospam@nospam.invalid says...
> Hello group,
>
> I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
> drive).
> 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> No RAID.
>
> Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
> is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
>
> Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

I wouldn't worry about it. I extremely doubt if there would be any speed
or performance difference between ATA100 and ATA133. I don't think ATA133
is an official standard anyways. Different manufacturers have their own
variations.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

SATA does not use UDMA. If it really bothers you, take a shotgun to the
mother-F-board.

"Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Hello group,
>
> I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
> drive).
> 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> No RAID.
>
> Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
> is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
>
> Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Navid
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:c59vvc01lp4@enews4.newsguy.com...
> SATA does not use UDMA. If it really bothers you, take a shotgun to the
> mother-F-board.
>
Good advice. I would replace it with a board that supported SCSI.

Rita

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I've never used Serial ATA, but
Could you be reading the wrong drive ?
Parallel ATA is 100 and 133
Is not the current serial speed SATA-150


"Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Hello group,
>
> I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
> drive).
> 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> No RAID.
>
> Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA
transfer
> mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active
mode
> is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
>
> Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Navid
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com
> Hello group,
>
> I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot drive).
> 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> No RAID.
>
> Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
> is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

This could be a possibility when the drive has a bridge chip and the bridge chip doesn't support UDMA mode 6.

>
> Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

Probably not and since SATA is point to point there is no reason for wanting it either.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Navid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:c5bqc8$2qlhv3$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com
> > Hello group,
> >
> > I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> > 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
drive).
> > 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> > No RAID.
> >
> > Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA
transfer
> > mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active
mode
> > is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
>
> This could be a possibility when the drive has a bridge chip and the bridge
chip doesn't support UDMA mode 6.
>
These utilities examine word 88 of Identify Device, and ATA-7 doesn't define
anything beyond UDMA-6.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:c59vvc01lp4@enews4.newsguy.com
> SATA does not use UDMA.

Yes, it does on legacy drives converted to SATA.

> If it really bothers you, take a shotgun to the mother-F-board.
>
> "Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > Hello group,
> >
> > I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> > 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the bootdrive).
> > 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> > No RAID.
> >
> > Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> > mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
> > is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
> >
> > Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Navid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:c5bspg1f3o@enews3.newsguy.com
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:c5bqc8$2qlhv3$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Navid" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:F1Xdc.16828$Ll3.440229@twister.southeast.rr.com
> > > Hello group,
> > >
> > > I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
> > > 1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot drive).
> > > 1 PATA drive with data on it.
> > > No RAID.
> > >
> > > Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> > > mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
> > > is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
> >
> > This could be a possibility when the drive has a bridge chip and the bridge chip
> > doesn't support UDMA mode 6.
> >
> These utilities examine word 88 of Identify Device, and ATA-7 doesn't define
> anything beyond UDMA-6.

I propose that you read again what I said.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> ejaculated:

>> >
>> > > He says he does not think ATA133 is an official standard
>> > > -
>> >
>> > Uhuh. So why object against ATA133 but not say a word about
>> > ATA100?
>
> Right. Glad we got that sorted.
>

Folkert, are you talking to yourself? It was you who wrote that
comment.

And your reply to what you said reveals what you now think it.

Weird.


-- snip --


>> > > Not in English, Dutch or
>> >
>> > > Frisian.
>> >
>> > You bookmarked that one post, did you?
>>
>> No need for bookmarks. Last time I was over in your part of
>> the world Frisian was an official language.
>
>> Can't see that that has changed recently.
>
> I was referring to a single (1) post where I happened to
> mention Frisian. So you didn't remember that one then.
> Oh well, there goes my "that proves you are a regular here"
> that I had in mind.

Guess so.

 

[Nuke]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

>Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
>mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active
>mode
>is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
>
>Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Navid

This is actually correct what is supposed to happen.

SATA *ALWAYS* runs at 1.5gbps, no matter what. (until SATA-II anyway).

By the SATA specification, SATA drives are supposed to appear to be UDMA mode 5
to the system. This is to make old software happy and that everything is
running normally.

So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CA9C6E538BD3A75@130.133.1.4...
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> ejaculated:
>
> >> >
> >> > > He says he does not think ATA133 is an official standard
> >> > > -
> >> >
> >> > Uhuh. So why object against ATA133 but not say a word about ATA100?
> >
> > Right. Glad we got that sorted.
> >
>
> Folkert, are you talking to yourself?

Well, I would have if you hadn't responded. So, do you always ask
stupid questions? Oops, we already had established that. Sorry.

> It was you who wrote that comment.

You don't say. Ever heard of tacit agreement? That's what I obviously
responded too. I don't have to spell it out for you, do I?
Say "I am insanely stupid and inept" and I might. But then, maybe not.

>
> And your reply to what you said reveals what you now think it.
>
> Weird.

Yup, that sentence of yours certainly is.

>
>
> -- snip --

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

> "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:94CA9C6E538BD3A75@130.133.1.4...
>> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> ejaculated:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > > He says he does not think ATA133 is an official
>> >> > > standard -
>> >> >
>> >> > Uhuh. So why object against ATA133 but not say a word
>> >> > about ATA100?
>> >
>> > Right. Glad we got that sorted.
>> >
>>
>> Folkert, are you talking to yourself?
>
> Well, I would have if you hadn't responded. So, do you always
> ask stupid questions? Oops, we already had established that.
> Sorry.
>
>> It was you who wrote that comment.
>
> You don't say. Ever heard of tacit agreement? That's what I
> obviously responded too. I don't have to spell it out for you,
> do I? Say "I am insanely stupid and inept" and I might. But
> then, maybe not.
>
>>
>> And your reply to what you said reveals what you now think
>> it.
>>
>> Weird.
>
> Yup, that sentence of yours certainly is.



Surreal. *sigh*

You are always good value for money, Forkert! Heh.

But despite my silly joshings with you I have to say that I do find
your less hostile postings useful because you do seem to know about
system storage.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"nuke" <larrysb@aol.commode> wrote in message news:20040414202251.14046.00000348@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
> >mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active
> >mode is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).
> >
> >Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Navid
>
> This is actually correct what is supposed to happen.
>
> SATA *ALWAYS* runs at 1.5gbps, no matter what. (until SATA-II anyway).
>
> By the SATA specification, SATA drives are supposed to appear to be UDMA
> mode 5 to the system.

Nonsense. Not a single mention of UDMA mode 5 in the SATA spec.
It wasn't even specified in ATA/ATAPI-5 which is what the spec seems
to be suggesting for 'Standard ATA Emulation'.

> This is to make old software happy and that everything is running normally.

'Standard ATA Emulation' is supposed to keep old software happy.
And that won't be standard user software as that can't care less about
the hardware interface. All it cares about is that the API hasn't changed
for your normal run of the mill user calls.

>
> So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.

Nice try, no cigar.

>
>
> --
> Dr. Nuketopia
> Sorry, no e-Mail.
> Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

 

[Nuke]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

>>
>> So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.
>
>Nice try, no cigar.

If you say so.

Go look and see what every hard disk on the market reports in Identify Device.




--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"nuke" <larrysb@aol.commode> wrote in message news:20040415165236.12763.00000227@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >>
> >> So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.
> >
> >Nice try, no cigar.
>
> If you say so.
>
> Go look and see what every hard disk on the market reports in Identify Device.

And now YOU said so too with a spectacularly stupid answer like that.

>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Nuketopia

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>But despite my silly joshings with you I have to say that I do find
>your less hostile postings useful because you do seem to know about
>system storage.

Folkert's been especially contentious, lately... I think the return
of Ronny Retard has got him on edge. 8)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:13ov701hvgtldf5b4qal4594b8leoqmvkb@4ax.com...
> Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >But despite my silly joshings with you I have to say that I do find
> >your less hostile postings useful because you do seem to know about
> >system storage.
>
> Folkert's been especially contentious, lately... I think the return
> of Ronny Retard has got him on edge. 8)
>

Yes, I can see the problem, yet another one of his many personalities to
share
the corncob with. Boy, is Rod going to be mad.

Rita