Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MAXTOR Quiet Drive 60GB 7200RPM Model # 6L060L3

Last response: in Storage
April 2, 2002 7:18:02 PM

hi i have a few quick questions about this drive, and people can help on these...

the MAXTOR Quiet Drive 60GB 7200RPM Model # 6L060L3 and
MAXTOR Quiet Drive 80GB 7200RPM Model # 6L080L4

are ata 133 drives, but would they still work on my MB if the MB only go up to ata100 ?

and second, has anyone tried setting up a Raid 0 with these drives, and how do they fare in the array...? i'm doing a slow gradual upgrade... so thinking if this drive turns out to do well, on my next upgrade I'll get another one and setup a raid 0 with for running hi-end apps and the swap, and replace my OS drive with a scsi 10k rpm drive or something.


April 3, 2002 5:58:57 AM

i can help.
im using a 80Gb of the slightly less advanced 'J' model with ball bearings, not fluid.

yes... all IDE drives are backwards compatible.
my ata133 maxtor happily lives on an ata100 controller. infact u can go even lower. for a while i was using an ata100 drive on a ata33 system... course the max transfer rate was a little hampered at 33mb/sec

infact, its highly unlikely that u will notice any difference at all as its only the burst transfer speed of the drive that can reach 133Mb/sec. The more important sustained read write speed is only 40 or 50Mb/sec.

the only other advantage of ata133 is that its capable of handling drives with storage capacities over 127Gb.

i havnt tried them in raid, allthough from what others have said they seem to get a good result.

Anything i think of as 'Decent' is unlikely to ever become 'OEM'
April 3, 2002 4:35:58 PM

60 gb substained rate around 30 mb/s around 80 gb 40 mb/s

:cool: <font color=blue>The Hardware Junkie</font color=blue> :cool:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b G Storage
April 4, 2002 1:33:11 AM

I thought that the 127gb limit was a fat32 partition limit.

127gb is the max partition under fat32. Right?

I don't think you need ATA133 for large drives.

May Fortune Favor The Foolish
April 4, 2002 1:45:50 AM

yes there is a fat32 limite somewhere around there, but i believe ata100 also has a inherent limit closeby too.

apart from that, ata133 is pretty useless.
less than 5% performance boost in benchmarks compared to ata100. wow. not.

Anything i think of as 'Decent' is unlikely to ever become 'OEM'
April 4, 2002 12:00:15 PM

No, 127GB is a 28bit LBA limitation.

Fat32 has the following limitations off the top of my head:::
32GB format limitation in Win2k & XP
64GB Fdisk limit (Fdisk update fixes issue)
2TB overall limitation

And yes, you do need ATA133 for drives larger then 127GB, because it's the only spec that allows a 48bit LBA as of yet.

<font color=red>People and hard drives are like bandwagon fans and sports!</font color=red>
April 4, 2002 4:24:52 PM

So if I configure 2 x 80GB in RAID 0, does that effect the 127GB limit, or is it the actual physical drives' size?

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> :wink: </b>
April 4, 2002 4:37:55 PM

It's the physical drive size. It is the size that the BIOS has to translate.

<font color=red>People and hard drives are like bandwagon fans and sports!</font color=red>