Sata and Data Corruption

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

My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.

Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.

Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
particular scenarios.

System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
greater
than default)
Large file transfers

Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
this scenario as well.

Thing I have done
- Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
- Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
- System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
- Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
- Read countless messages on the topic
- Nothing seems to work

Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
internal, yet experience data corruption.

These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.

Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?

Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1

Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
in Windows XP
http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html

Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/


OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
- 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
v.42 (3025)

Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
27 answers Last reply
More about sata data corruption
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:16:08 -0700, Robert Neville
    <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote:


    >with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    >this scenario as well.
    >

    Anytime you mention ATI9800 and hard drives, the +12 volt power supply
    comes to mind ;)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Robert Neville <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote:
    > My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    > drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    > on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    > Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    > After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    > anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    > away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    > my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    [...]
    > These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    > Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    > blame the software developers.

    I had something like this with firewire under Linux. However I did not
    get corruption, but multiple interface timouts and the kernel dropping
    the disk because it said it was unusable.

    I did not have any problems with the VIA-internal SATA do far.
    Data-corruption due to bad bits is very unlikely with SATA.
    Have you looked at the specific type of corruption? Is it wrong
    bits, missing sectors, whole sectors that are wrong, short writes
    or something else?

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Robert Neville" <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote in message
    news:7hae809trrghsda92k40e1h5815nn91fcu@4ax.com...
    > My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    > drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    > on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    > Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    > After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    > anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    > away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    > my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    >
    > Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    > Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    > corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    > use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    > data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    > re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    > allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    >
    > Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    > particular scenarios.
    >
    > System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    > Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    > hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    > AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    > greater
    > than default)
    > Large file transfers
    >
    > Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    > Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    > with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    > this scenario as well.
    >
    > Thing I have done
    > - Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    > - Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    > - System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    > - Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    > - Read countless messages on the topic
    > - Nothing seems to work
    >
    > Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    > corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    > Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    > internal, yet experience data corruption.
    >
    > These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    > Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    > blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    > responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    > posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    > associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    > one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    >
    > Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    > data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    > transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    >
    http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    >
    > Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    > in Windows XP
    > http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    > http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    >
    >
    > OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    > 2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    > Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    > - 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    > 60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    > SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    > G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    > v.42 (3025)
    >
    > Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    > nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    >
    Hi
    I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
    board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
    the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
    (seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!

    As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
    from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
    MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
    a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
    same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
    If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
    may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
    send me an email address or I can post them here.

    regards
    ted
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Try memory/IO test http://home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm

    Run it under Windows with I/O test enabled. See if you can find conditions
    when it fails or succeeds.

    Are you sure the enclosure supports disks>137 GB, though?

    "Robert Neville" <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote in message
    news:7hae809trrghsda92k40e1h5815nn91fcu@4ax.com...
    > My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    > drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    > on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    > Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    > After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    > anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    > away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    > my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    >
    > Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    > Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    > corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    > use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    > data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    > re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    > allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    >
    > Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    > particular scenarios.
    >
    > System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    > Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    > hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    > AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    > greater
    > than default)
    > Large file transfers
    >
    > Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    > Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    > with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    > this scenario as well.
    >
    > Thing I have done
    > - Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    > - Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    > - System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    > - Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    > - Read countless messages on the topic
    > - Nothing seems to work
    >
    > Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    > corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    > Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    > internal, yet experience data corruption.
    >
    > These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    > Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    > blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    > responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    > posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    > associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    > one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    >
    > Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    > data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    > transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    >
    http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    >
    > Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    > in Windows XP
    > http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    > http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    >
    >
    > OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    > 2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    > Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    > - 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    > 60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    > SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    > G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    > v.42 (3025)
    >
    > Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    > nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    >
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously ted msn <ted_greagsbey@msn.com> wrote:

    > "Robert Neville" <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote in message
    > news:7hae809trrghsda92k40e1h5815nn91fcu@4ax.com...
    >> My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    >> drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    [...]
    >> Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    >> nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    >>
    > Hi
    > I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
    > board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
    > the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
    > (seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!
    >
    > As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
    > from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
    > MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
    > a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
    > same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
    > If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
    > may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
    > send me an email address or I can post them here.

    I had this problem with a defective RAM some years ago. Maybe the
    bus-interface of the SATA/IDE RAID controller is just not up to
    spec?

    MD5 sums are a very good way to check for corruptions (on Linux
    use "md5sum <names>" to generate and "md5sum -c <file with list>"
    to compare). I have used this method with very good succes for
    several years now.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "ted msn" <ted_greagsbey@msn.com> wrote in
    news:c68407$fg$1@sparta.btinternet.com:

    >
    > As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum
    > routine from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter
    > to the MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left
    > it running for a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss
    > match but not the same files all the time ie some would read ok on one
    > pass but not the next. If you want my two DOS batch files let me know
    > ( they are short and simple may not be the best bit of work but they
    > do work!) send me an email address or I can post them here.
    >

    I'd be interested in seeing your batch files for testing.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Here's a response from Asus's Lee Broughton to my situation.

    << Sir if you will do a search on google for 137 gb windows limitation
    you will see that this is actually an OS problem, you will also find
    the registry fix needed to reolve the problem you are having. Please
    do not respond to this email if you still need assistance please
    contact our tech support office at 502-995-0883 and give the
    technician who picks up this case number. >>

    I found his tone arrogant. Why could he not provide a link to the
    registry fix? Cuz it doesn't work anymore. Here's the backup.

    http://www.storageforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2601

    This registry hack is no longer needed (and indeed no longer works) if
    you update ATAPI.SYS

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013


    note also, that there is a possibility of data corruption with suspend
    and hibernate modes and ATAPI.SYS versions prior to 1135, so you
    should use the updated ATAPI.SYS in preference to the reg hack method
    in any case.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;331958

    This fix has been working for me so far (along with the bios and SATA
    driver updates).


    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:16:08 -0700, Robert Neville
    <Robert_Neville31o@y@ho0.com> wrote:

    >My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    >drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    >on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    >Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    >After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    >anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    >away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    >my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    >
    >Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    >Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    >corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    >use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    >data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    >re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    >allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    >
    >Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    >particular scenarios.
    >
    >System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    >Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    >hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    >AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    >greater
    >than default)
    >Large file transfers
    >
    >Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    >Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    >with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    >this scenario as well.
    >
    >Thing I have done
    >- Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    >- Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    >- System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    >- Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    >- Read countless messages on the topic
    >- Nothing seems to work
    >
    >Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    >corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    >Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    >internal, yet experience data corruption.
    >
    >These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    >Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    >blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    >responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    >posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    >associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    >one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    >
    >Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    >data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    >transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    >
    >Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    >http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    >
    >Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    >in Windows XP
    >http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    >
    >Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    >http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    >
    >
    >OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    >2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    >Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    >- 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    >60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    >SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    >G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    >v.42 (3025)
    >
    >Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    >nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    As another poster suggested, do run (complete) memory tests.

    Also try DocMemory:
    http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp

    It helped me in detecting memory -> disk corruption when pushing memory
    too hard. I hate this sort of problem because you can't do much with
    your system. With every operation you run the risk of corrupting data.

    I don't think it's the 48 bit LBA issue because that only applies to
    IDE. Your SII controller should present itself as a SCSI controller,
    which clearly supports > 137 GB drives. Are you sure you're not using
    an integrated SATA controller running under some kind of "ide legacy
    mode"? Only then would EnableBigLba possibly make a difference.


    Robert Neville wrote:
    > My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    > drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    > on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    > Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    > After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    > anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    > away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    > my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    >
    > Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    > Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    > corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    > use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    > data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    > re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    > allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    >
    > Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    > particular scenarios.
    >
    > System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    > Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    > hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    > AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    > greater
    > than default)
    > Large file transfers
    >
    > Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    > Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    > with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    > this scenario as well.
    >
    > Thing I have done
    > - Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    > - Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    > - System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    > - Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    > - Read countless messages on the topic
    > - Nothing seems to work
    >
    > Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    > corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    > Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    > internal, yet experience data corruption.
    >
    > These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    > Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    > blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    > responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    > posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    > associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    > one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    >
    > Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    > data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    > transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    > http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    >
    > Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    > in Windows XP
    > http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    >
    > Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    > http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    >
    >
    > OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    > 2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    > Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    > - 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    > 60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    > SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    > G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    > v.42 (3025)
    >
    > Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    > nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "mr potatohead" <"mr potatohead"> wrote in message news:XZOdnTUuAPBEBRTdRVn2vQ@giganews.com...
    > As another poster suggested, do run (complete) memory tests.
    >
    > Also try DocMemory:
    > http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp
    >
    > It helped me in detecting memory -> disk corruption when pushing memory
    > too hard. I hate this sort of problem because you can't do much with
    > your system. With every operation you run the risk of corrupting data.
    >

    > I don't think it's the 48 bit LBA issue because that only applies to
    > IDE. Your SII controller should present itself as a SCSI controller,
    > which clearly supports > 137 GB drives. Are you sure you're not using
    > an integrated SATA controller running under some kind of "ide legacy
    > mode"? Only then would EnableBigLba possibly make a difference.

    Potatohead huh? How fitting that name is ......


    >
    >
    > Robert Neville wrote:
    > > My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    > > drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    > > on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    > > Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    > > After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    > > anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    > > away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    > > my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    > >
    > > Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    > > Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    > > corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    > > use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    > > data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    > > re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    > > allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    > >
    > > Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    > > particular scenarios.
    > >
    > > System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    > > Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    > > hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    > > AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    > > greater
    > > than default)
    > > Large file transfers
    > >
    > > Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    > > Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    > > with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    > > this scenario as well.
    > >
    > > Thing I have done
    > > - Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    > > - Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    > > - System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    > > - Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    > > - Read countless messages on the topic
    > > - Nothing seems to work
    > >
    > > Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    > > corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    > > Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    > > internal, yet experience data corruption.
    > >
    > > These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    > > Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    > > blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    > > responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    > > posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    > > associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    > > one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    > >
    > > Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    > > data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    > > transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    > >
    > > Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    > > http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    > >
    > > Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    > > in Windows XP
    > > http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    > >
    > > Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    > > http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    > >
    > >
    > > OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    > > 2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    > > Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    > > - 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    > > 60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    > > SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    > > G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    > > v.42 (3025)
    > >
    > > Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    > > nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    > >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    : "mr potatohead" <"mr potatohead"> wrote in message
    : news:XZOdnTUuAPBEBRTdRVn2vQ@giganews.com...
    <snip>
    : Potatohead huh? How fitting that name is ......

    Another stunning troll by Folknut the Trollboy. LOL!

    J.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    MemTest86 3.1a has better patterns for memory testing.

    http://www.memtest86.com

    I had issues with some Corsair XMS3200 modules that other tests were detecting as good and that
    MemTest86 found to be defective instead (and two years ago I had issues with a cheap Elixir 512MB
    PC2100 module that I found out to be defective with MemTest86 and I was experiencing strange data
    corruption under Win2K first and XP later on although the system seemed to work perfectly--files got
    corrupted and I was thinking it was due to the P4B266 motherboard southbridge but it was the RAM
    instead)
    I never use any RAM modules that can't pass all MemTest86 tests with zero errors.


    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:29:55 -0700, "mr potatohead" <"mr potatohead"> wrote:

    >As another poster suggested, do run (complete) memory tests.
    >
    >Also try DocMemory:
    >http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp
    >
    >It helped me in detecting memory -> disk corruption when pushing memory
    >too hard. I hate this sort of problem because you can't do much with
    >your system. With every operation you run the risk of corrupting data.
    >
    >I don't think it's the 48 bit LBA issue because that only applies to
    >IDE. Your SII controller should present itself as a SCSI controller,
    >which clearly supports > 137 GB drives. Are you sure you're not using
    >an integrated SATA controller running under some kind of "ide legacy
    >mode"? Only then would EnableBigLba possibly make a difference.
    >
    >
    >Robert Neville wrote:
    >> My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
    >> drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
    >> on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
    >> Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
    >> After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
    >> anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
    >> away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
    >> my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.
    >>
    >> Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
    >> Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
    >> corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
    >> use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
    >> data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
    >> re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
    >> allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.
    >>
    >> Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
    >> particular scenarios.
    >>
    >> System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
    >> Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
    >> hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
    >> AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
    >> greater
    >> than default)
    >> Large file transfers
    >>
    >> Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
    >> Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
    >> with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
    >> this scenario as well.
    >>
    >> Thing I have done
    >> - Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
    >> - Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
    >> - System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
    >> - Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
    >> - Read countless messages on the topic
    >> - Nothing seems to work
    >>
    >> Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
    >> corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
    >> Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
    >> internal, yet experience data corruption.
    >>
    >> These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
    >> Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
    >> blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
    >> responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
    >> posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
    >> associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
    >> one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.
    >>
    >> Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
    >> data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
    >> transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?
    >>
    >> Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
    >> http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1
    >>
    >> Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
    >> in Windows XP
    >> http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html
    >>
    >> Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
    >> http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/
    >>
    >>
    >> OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
    >> 2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
    >> Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
    >> - 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
    >> 60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
    >> SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
    >> G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
    >> v.42 (3025)
    >>
    >> Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
    >> nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller
    >>
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "ted msn" <ted_greagsbey@msn.com> wrote:
    >I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
    >board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
    >the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
    >(seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!
    >
    >As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
    >from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
    >MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
    >a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
    >same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
    >If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
    >may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
    >send me an email address or I can post them here.

    Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
    occasionally read the wrong sectors.

    Please post the .bat files.

    --
    delete NOSPAM to reply by email
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:03:15 -0700, Walter Epp
    <N0SPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote:


    >
    >Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
    >occasionally read the wrong sectors.
    >

    damn. this is some ugly stuff.


    Serial ATA (SATA or SATA-1)
    FIRST, THINGS YOU DO NOT DO WHEN USING SATA!


    If you are setting up a system using SATA here are some things you
    must be aware of:

    DO NOT operate SATA devices outside of a sealed system unit. DO NOT
    operate SATA devices from a power supply that is not the system unit's
    power supply.
    DO NOT tie wrap SATA cables together. DO NOT put sharp bends in SATA
    cables. DO NOT route SATA cables near PATA cables. Avoid placing SATA
    devices close to each other such that the SATA cable connectors are
    close to each other.
    DO NOT operate a radio transmitter (such as a cell phone) near an
    exposed SATA cable or device.
    Why all these warning? The basic problem is the SATA cable connector
    is not shielded. This has to be the number one most stupid thing that
    has been done in the SATA world.

    More at above website url
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    anonymous wrote:

    > On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:03:15 -0700, Walter Epp
    > <N0SPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
    >>occasionally read the wrong sectors.
    >>
    >
    > damn. this is some ugly stuff.
    >
    >
    >
    > Serial ATA (SATA or SATA-1)
    > FIRST, THINGS YOU DO NOT DO WHEN USING SATA!
    >
    >
    > If you are setting up a system using SATA here are some things you
    > must be aware of:
    >
    > DO NOT operate SATA devices outside of a sealed system unit. DO NOT
    > operate SATA devices from a power supply that is not the system unit's
    > power supply.
    > DO NOT tie wrap SATA cables together. DO NOT put sharp bends in SATA
    > cables. DO NOT route SATA cables near PATA cables. Avoid placing SATA
    > devices close to each other such that the SATA cable connectors are
    > close to each other.
    > DO NOT operate a radio transmitter (such as a cell phone) near an
    > exposed SATA cable or device.
    > Why all these warning? The basic problem is the SATA cable connector
    > is not shielded. This has to be the number one most stupid thing that
    > has been done in the SATA world.
    >
    > More at above website url

    This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
    science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
    his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
    yahoo spouting off on a Web site.

    In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
    SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
    of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?

    Can you say FUD?

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in
    news:c75vj61uba@news4.newsguy.com:

    > This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
    > science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
    > his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
    > yahoo spouting off on a Web site.
    >
    > In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
    > SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
    > of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?
    >
    > Can you say FUD?

    This is the problem I have with that page. It makes claims but it doesn't
    back any of it up with documentation or even explanations. It's no better
    than the "secret society" he's complaining about.

    I took a look inside my computer and none of the connectors are shielded.
    PCI, ISA, Memory, SCSI 50 pin, SCSI LVD, ATA-33, ATA-133, Power, ATI TV MMC
    ribbon, Sound Card, SPDIF, even the dual Slot 1 CPU sockets

    The only thing I could remotely considered shielded are the DIN connectors
    for video, serial, and parallel, but that's more for grounding than
    shielding.

    It's been a long time since I worked on IBMs SSA, IBM's version of serial
    interface to drives. But I don't remember their cables or connectors having
    sheilds. Can anyone else with more recent experience with IBM SSA confirm
    the nature of their cables and connectors? How about SAS? I just did some
    googles on SSA and SAS but so far have found nothing to confirm if the
    connectors are sheilded or not.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
    news:Xns94DEA1EAC2D7Cgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in
    > news:c75vj61uba@news4.newsguy.com:
    >
    > > This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
    > > science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
    > > his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
    > > yahoo spouting off on a Web site.
    > >
    > > In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
    > > SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
    > > of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?
    > >
    GB Ethernet uses all four twisted pairs, and SATA/SAS use two pairs and 50%
    higher clock.

    > > Can you say FUD?
    >
    > This is the problem I have with that page. It makes claims but it doesn't
    > back any of it up with documentation or even explanations. It's no better
    > than the "secret society" he's complaining about.
    >
    > I took a look inside my computer and none of the connectors are shielded.
    > PCI, ISA, Memory, SCSI 50 pin, SCSI LVD, ATA-33, ATA-133, Power, ATI TV MMC
    > ribbon, Sound Card, SPDIF, even the dual Slot 1 CPU sockets
    >
    Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133 and
    40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't know the
    clock (less than 1GHz).

    SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you can
    expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding this
    problem.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in
    news:c76hre0cf3@enews1.newsguy.com:

    > Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133
    > and 40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't
    > know the clock (less than 1GHz).
    >
    > SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you
    > can expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding
    > this problem.

    That's what I was thinking about with regards to SATA. The web site is
    specifically talking about the connector not being sheilded, not the cable,
    so I didn't bother mentioning the cable itself.

    I notice some places sell shielded SATA cables. But it's not the only way to
    improve the cables. As you point out, interference can be reduced by
    changing the twist pattern of the cables. I don't know if that is part of
    any SATA spec or not.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:c75vj61uba@news4.newsguy.com...
    > anonymous wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:03:15 -0700, Walter Epp
    > > <N0SPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
    > >>occasionally read the wrong sectors.
    > >>
    > >
    > > damn. this is some ugly stuff.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Serial ATA (SATA or SATA-1)
    > > FIRST, THINGS YOU DO NOT DO WHEN USING SATA!
    > >
    > >
    > > If you are setting up a system using SATA here are some things you
    > > must be aware of:
    > >
    > > DO NOT operate SATA devices outside of a sealed system unit. DO NOT
    > > operate SATA devices from a power supply that is not the system unit's
    > > power supply.
    > > DO NOT tie wrap SATA cables together. DO NOT put sharp bends in SATA
    > > cables. DO NOT route SATA cables near PATA cables. Avoid placing SATA
    > > devices close to each other such that the SATA cable connectors are
    > > close to each other.
    > > DO NOT operate a radio transmitter (such as a cell phone) near an
    > > exposed SATA cable or device.
    > > Why all these warning? The basic problem is the SATA cable connector
    > > is not shielded. This has to be the number one most stupid thing that
    > > has been done in the SATA world.
    > >
    > > More at above website url
    >
    > This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
    > science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
    > his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
    > yahoo spouting off on a Web site.
    >
    > In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
    > SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
    > of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?
    >
    > Can you say FUD?

    Is that an acronym for SCSI zealot?
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
    news:c76hre0cf3@enews1.newsguy.com...
    > "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94DEA1EAC2D7Cgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
    > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in
    > > news:c75vj61uba@news4.newsguy.com:
    > >
    > > > This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
    > > > science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated.
    Have
    > > > his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one
    more
    > > > yahoo spouting off on a Web site.
    > > >
    > > > In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is
    the
    > > > SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter.
    All
    > > > of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?
    > > >
    > GB Ethernet uses all four twisted pairs, and SATA/SAS use two pairs and
    50%
    > higher clock.
    >
    > > > Can you say FUD?
    > >
    > > This is the problem I have with that page. It makes claims but it
    doesn't
    > > back any of it up with documentation or even explanations. It's no
    better
    > > than the "secret society" he's complaining about.
    > >
    > > I took a look inside my computer and none of the connectors are
    shielded.
    > > PCI, ISA, Memory, SCSI 50 pin, SCSI LVD, ATA-33, ATA-133, Power, ATI TV
    MMC
    > > ribbon, Sound Card, SPDIF, even the dual Slot 1 CPU sockets
    > >
    > Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133 and
    > 40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't know the
    > clock (less than 1GHz).
    >
    > SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you
    can
    > expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding this
    > problem.

    And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the run
    length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in news:mGTlc.34994$Xj6.592418
    @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

    > And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the run
    > length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?

    It wasn't a point. It was a question. There is more than one way to reduce
    the effects of outside noise in a cable. A shield is one, a specific pattern
    of cable winding is another. I was asking if either are used in making SATA
    cables or if either are part of the spec.

    I know some vendors make sheilded SATA cables. But I don't know if anyone
    uses a specific winding pattern for SATA. And, I don't know if either are
    part of the spec. Also I was asking how SATA compares to SAS and SSA. Last
    time I worked with SSA was 3 years ago on some RS6000s. At the time, the
    cables were not sheilded. I don't know if that's still the case or not.
    These are the questions I was asking.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky> wrote in message
    news:Xns94DFA63ECF04Dgrinchhatespamyucksh@24.71.223.159...
    > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in news:mGTlc.34994$Xj6.592418
    > @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


    >>> SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you
    can
    >>> expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding
    this
    problem.

    >
    > > And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the
    run
    > > length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?
    >
    > It wasn't a point. It was a question. There is more than one way to
    reduce
    > the effects of outside noise in a cable. A shield is one, a specific
    pattern
    > of cable winding is another. I was asking if either are used in making
    SATA
    > cables or if either are part of the spec.

    Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.

    In case you didn't realize my post was not to one of your posts and your
    snips have subverted your post(corrected).
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
    wrote:


    >
    >Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.
    >

    Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
    cables and commands as suggested on that website ?
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <another@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:mc9j90t26a8tdnn8k8sij0cnlf8f0g3is0@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.
    > >
    >
    > Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
    > cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

    Cables are not the issue.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    another@nospam.com wrote:

    > On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.
    >>
    >
    > Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
    > cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

    It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
    data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
    question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results, he
    does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he concludes
    that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be anything from
    buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility that it could be
    an artifact of his test procedure.

    In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
    it may or may not be related to the cable design.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:54:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >another@nospam.com wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
    >> cables and commands as suggested on that website ?
    >
    >It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
    >data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
    >question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results, he
    >does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he concludes
    >that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be anything from
    >buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility that it could be
    >an artifact of his test procedure.
    >
    >In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
    >it may or may not be related to the cable design.

    I've read enough complaints of data corruption with SATA that I'd
    assume there are problems somewhere. What they are and how they're
    fixed is what I'd like to know. If this guy is so wrong, I'd expect
    some url's to the test reports showing he's a wacko. Surly it's not
    too hard to test cables for data corruption and show they work. Or
    test effects of SATA commands or lack of them.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    another@nospam.com wrote:

    > On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:54:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>another@nospam.com wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
    >>> cables and commands as suggested on that website ?
    >>
    >>It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
    >>data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
    >>question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results,
    >>he does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he
    >>concludes that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be
    >>anything from buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility
    >>that it could be an artifact of his test procedure.
    >>
    >>In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
    >>it may or may not be related to the cable design.
    >
    > I've read enough complaints of data corruption with SATA that I'd
    > assume there are problems somewhere.

    Where did you read these complaints?

    > What they are and how they're
    > fixed is what I'd like to know.

    You mean these "complaints" you read did not say what data was corrupted nor
    in what manner?

    > If this guy is so wrong, I'd expect
    > some url's to the test reports showing he's a wacko.

    (a) Who said he's "wrong"? He may be right. But one should not assume that
    a single individual's opinion is authoritative.
    (b) "Showing he's a whacko" would require a fairly extensive effort which is
    only likely to be conducted by someone with an axe to grind or someone with
    a large budget and nothing to spend it on.

    > Surly it's not
    > too hard to test cables for data corruption and show they work.

    You can't prove a negative. It's easy to test them and show that they don't
    work. It is not so easy to test them and prove that they will work
    reliably under all concievable circumstances.

    > Or
    > test effects of SATA commands or lack of them.

    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting here.


    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:


    >...

    >I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting here.

    Yeah, I can tell from your response. Sounds like an echo or
    something ;)
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Storage