|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SATA Disk writes too slow
right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction. I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s). Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and writing. I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different cable, but it's still the same. In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but on the next startup it was installed again. What can I do? Thank you. GuilleFC wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking > right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction. > > I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and > it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they > all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s). > > Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other > PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and > writing. > > I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different > cable, but it's still the same. > > In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" > but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but > on the next startup it was installed again. > > What can I do? > Thank you. complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should be). Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there. > I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking I don't think it has to do with having both PATA and SATA drives in> complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're > copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a > PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should > be). the same system. While copying files is slow too, I realized that the SATA disk was slow when I installed Pinnacle Studio and ran the check for disk speed that it does before capturing from camcorder. I don't know what it does to do the test, but I would guess that it's just to create and fill a file of a given size and watch how long it took. Besides, I unplugged the PATA disks and booted with only the SATA disk, with the same result. > Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there. I won't do it again, now that I know that Windows needs it, but Idon't seem to undesrtand what for. Thank you Miss. On 13 Mar 2005 13:38:33 -0800, guill***@hotmail.com
(GuilleFC) wrote: >> I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking It's not.>> complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're >> copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a >> PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should >> be). > >I don't think it has to do with having both PATA and SATA drives in >the same system. Show quoteHide quote >While copying files is slow too, I realized that the The "RAID" entry is there because it IS a RAID (capable)>SATA disk was slow when I installed Pinnacle Studio and ran the check >for disk speed that it does before capturing from camcorder. I don't >know what it does to do the test, but I would guess that it's just to >create and fill a file of a given size and watch how long it took. > >Besides, I unplugged the PATA disks and booted with only the SATA >disk, with the same result. > >> Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there. > >I won't do it again, now that I know that Windows needs it, but I >don't seem to undesrtand what for. > >Thank you Miss. controller. There are a number of possible things to try, - Newer motherboard bios - Different Via 4in1 driver - Different RAID driver - Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try 80-96) - Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other card(s) around in PCI slots. > There are a number of possible things to try, Do you mean to try drivers for different but similar motherboards? I> - Newer motherboard bios > - Different Via 4in1 driver > - Different RAID driver don't know if I should do that, it sounds risky. > - Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try 80-96) IRQ for "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" is 20 and it's not shared.> - Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other > card(s) around in PCI slots. IRQ's for primary and secondary IDE channels are 15 and 16 and they're not shared either. It's not a PCI SATA card, but it's built in the motherboard. Does it have any relation with PCI? Thank you Kony. On 14 Mar 2005 14:00:01 -0800, guill***@hotmail.com
(GuilleFC) wrote: >> There are a number of possible things to try, Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard>> - Newer motherboard bios >> - Different Via 4in1 driver >> - Different RAID driver > >Do you mean to try drivers for different but similar motherboards? I >don't know if I should do that, it sounds risky. manufacturer when there is a newer available from the chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but rather start out a system with the current driver revisions as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite old. Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually due to merely being older version). > No and yes. If it's a separate SATA chip providing the>> - Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try 80-96) >> - Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other >> card(s) around in PCI slots. > >IRQ for "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" is 20 and it's not shared. >IRQ's for primary and secondary IDE channels are 15 and 16 and they're >not shared either. > >It's not a PCI SATA card, but it's built in the motherboard. Does it >have any relation with PCI? function its still on the PCI bus, but since modern chipsets integrated it into the southbridge i'll focus on that for a moment. Modern chipset integral SATA is not dependant on PCI bus BUT overall system performance may still be lagging due to sub-optimal PCI bus, and that lag may effect more than just PCI devices. If it's southbridge-integral then there is far lower chance the PCI latency would have an effect, it may not be accountable for this problem. I had overlooked that your KT6 based board should have southbridge-based SATA though I still suggest rasing the PCI latency if it's at 32 in the bios (was a common default value).
Show quote
Hide quote
> Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard I had already updated drivers and BIOS with the MSI LiveUpdate> manufacturer when there is a newer available from the > chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the > chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but > rather start out a system with the current driver revisions > as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite > old. > > Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios > being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware > monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver > is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and > interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually > due to merely being older version). utility, so I thought I should have the latest. Now I visited VIA web site and found they are the latest indeed. > No and yes. If it's a separate SATA chip providing the Raising the value to 96 had no effect (yes, it was 32).> function its still on the PCI bus, but since modern chipsets > integrated it into the southbridge i'll focus on that for a > moment. Modern chipset integral SATA is not dependant on > PCI bus BUT overall system performance may still be lagging > due to sub-optimal PCI bus, and that lag may effect more > than just PCI devices. If it's southbridge-integral then > there is far lower chance the PCI latency would have an > effect, it may not be accountable for this problem. I had > overlooked that your KT6 based board should have > southbridge-based SATA though I still suggest rasing the PCI > latency if it's at 32 in the bios (was a common default > value). In the BIOS setup, under the SATA Controller (which is Enabled, of course), I found a setting called "V-Link Data 2X Support", which is also Enabled. I'm not sure what this is for, or whether it's related with SATA, but disabling it had no effect either. Thank you Kony. On 15 Mar 2005 14:56:55 -0800, guill***@hotmail.com
(GuilleFC) wrote: Show quoteHide quote >> Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard Sometimes yes it can work out that way, but sometimes no.>> manufacturer when there is a newer available from the >> chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the >> chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but >> rather start out a system with the current driver revisions >> as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite >> old. >> >> Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios >> being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware >> monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver >> is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and >> interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually >> due to merely being older version). > >I had already updated drivers and BIOS with the MSI LiveUpdate >utility, so I thought I should have the latest. Now I visited VIA web >site and found they are the latest indeed. At the very best the motherboard manufacturer can hope to have their website and "live" update thingy updated with new drivers in a timely fashion, but often they aren't. It all happens after chipset manufacturer has released that new driver, which they probably already linked from their own driver offerings or at least had up on an FTP server somewhere. >Raising the value to 96 had no effect (yes, it was 32). You might not note any difference except at times of highCPU utilization, like networking while playing audio, adding a PCI GbE or other controller card or ??? Generally when I can't tell a difference either way I leave it at 64. > Leave it enabled, otherwise the (northbridge to>In the BIOS setup, under the SATA Controller (which is Enabled, of >course), I found a setting called "V-Link Data 2X Support", which is >also Enabled. I'm not sure what this is for, or whether it's related >with SATA, but disabling it had no effect either. southbridge?) bus runs slower. > Sometimes yes it can work out that way, but sometimes no. In my case, how can I tell? I'd bet my motherboard manufacturer is MSI> At the very best the motherboard manufacturer can hope to > have their website and "live" update thingy updated with new > drivers in a timely fashion, but often they aren't. It all > happens after chipset manufacturer has released that new > driver, which they probably already linked from their own > driver offerings or at least had up on an FTP server > somewhere. and chipset manufacturer is VIA, I've checked both websites and they both offer the same latest updates. Should I pretend I'm correctly updated? > You might not note any difference except at times of high The only PCI devices that I have are a FireWire card and the Pinnacle> CPU utilization, like networking while playing audio, adding > a PCI GbE or other controller card or ??? Generally when > I can't tell a difference either way I leave it at 64. PCTV Pro. Usually when I can anticipate a high CPU utilization, like compiling a large edited video, I go away and leave the computer alone to do her work. Anyway, I have not seen any difference since I changed it to 96 so I'll lower it back. > Leave it enabled, otherwise the (northbridge to Thank you Kony.> southbridge?) bus runs slower. On 17 Mar 2005 01:08:38 -0800, guill***@hotmail.com
(GuilleFC) wrote: Show quoteHide quote >> Sometimes yes it can work out that way, but sometimes no. The driver versio numbers should tell you. Not necessarily>> At the very best the motherboard manufacturer can hope to >> have their website and "live" update thingy updated with new >> drivers in a timely fashion, but often they aren't. It all >> happens after chipset manufacturer has released that new >> driver, which they probably already linked from their own >> driver offerings or at least had up on an FTP server >> somewhere. > >In my case, how can I tell? I'd bet my motherboard manufacturer is MSI >and chipset manufacturer is VIA, I've checked both websites and they >both offer the same latest updates. Should I pretend I'm correctly >updated? > what the "named" version number is as sometimes the manufacturer brands drivers or renumbers them, but the readme files, the properties for some key files, or properties seen for driver/device in Device Manager should tell the version. When it doubt it's generally best to just go to chipset manufacturer and get their latest. You might as well leave the drivers alone if they are updated, unless you had suspected corruption. >> You might not note any difference except at times of high I was mistaken above, I wrote "CPU Utilization" when I meant>> CPU utilization, like networking while playing audio, adding >> a PCI GbE or other controller card or ??? Generally when >> I can't tell a difference either way I leave it at 64. > >The only PCI devices that I have are a FireWire card and the Pinnacle >PCTV Pro. Usually when I can anticipate a high CPU utilization, like >compiling a large edited video, I go away and leave the computer alone >to do her work. Anyway, I have not seen any difference since I changed >it to 96 so I'll lower it back. > "PCI utilization". Most boards don't need 96, but in the past few years Via boards seemed likely, most often to need more than 32. Maybe the disk write cache is turned off. I have seen this causing slow write with SCSI drives. Since SATA emulates SCSI, and some OSs e.g. WinXP can turn off disk write cache against your wished perhaps this is your problem. Also check the system BIOS and SATA BIOS, if it is displayed, for any cache settings.
GuilleFC wrote: Show quoteHide quote > > This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the > right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction. > > I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and > it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they > all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s). > > Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other > PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and > writing. > > I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different > cable, but it's still the same. > > In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" > but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but > on the next startup it was installed again. > > What can I do? > Thank you. -- Mike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. > Maybe the disk write cache is turned off. I have seen this causing slow write with SCSI drives. Since SATA emulates SCSI, and some OSs e.g. WinXP can turn off disk write cache against your wished perhaps this is your problem. Also check the system BIOS and SATA BIOS, if it is displayed, for any cache settings. Maybe you're right, but I can't find any place to check whether it'sturned on or off. I can find it for the other disks, but for the SATA the option just is not there. Thank you.
Show quote
Hide quote
"GuilleFC" <guill***@hotmail.com> skrev i melding Two things you may do to find out wheter it's the hd or mobo that causes thenews:341dbf5e.0503130139.5583f3fe@posting.google.com... > This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the > right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction. > > I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and > it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they > all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s). > > Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other > PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and > writing. > > I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different > cable, but it's still the same. > > In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" > but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but > on the next startup it was installed again. > > What can I do? > Thank you. low writing speed. Assuming that you have access on either an extra hd or second machine that support sata-disks: 1: Test the hd in a different machine to see if the write speed is low. If it's low on the other machine, the hd is probably bad. Otherwise (if writing speed is ok) there is a most likely a problem with your raid controller and the drives for it. 2: If you have another sata-drive avaiable, exchange it with the hd that you experiences low writing speed with. If the other hd also writes slow, there is probably your raid-controller and drives for it that causes the problem. Otherwise, your hd is probably broken. * hd = HardDrive ; mobo = MOtherBOard.
Show quote
Hide quote
> Two things you may do to find out wheter it's the hd or mobo that causes the Just before I read your message, I was doing exactly what you said,> low writing speed. Assuming that you have access on either an extra hd or > second machine that support sata-disks: > > 1: Test the hd in a different machine to see if the write speed is low. If > it's low on the other machine, the hd is probably bad. Otherwise (if writing > speed is ok) there is a most likely a problem with your raid controller and > the drives for it. > > 2: If you have another sata-drive avaiable, exchange it with the hd that you > experiences low writing speed with. If the other hd also writes slow, there > is probably your raid-controller and drives for it that causes the problem. > Otherwise, your hd is probably broken. > > * hd = HardDrive ; mobo = MOtherBOard. and the results are astounding: 1: My disk in another machine goes fast (received a 3 GB file in about 2 min). 2: Other SATA disk in my machine goes fast too. If it wasn't because the lent disk is a 40 GB and mine is a 250 GB, I would have happily changed them. Now I'm completely lost and don't know what to do :'''''''( Thank you Geir.
Show quote
Hide quote
"GuilleFC" <guill***@hotmail.com> skrev i melding Oops! Seems that your mobo and hd simply doesn't like each other. A rarenews:341dbf5e.0503171123.17734168@posting.google.com... > > Two things you may do to find out wheter it's the hd or mobo that causes the > > low writing speed. Assuming that you have access on either an extra hd or > > second machine that support sata-disks: > > > > 1: Test the hd in a different machine to see if the write speed is low. If > > it's low on the other machine, the hd is probably bad. Otherwise (if writing > > speed is ok) there is a most likely a problem with your raid controller and > > the drives for it. > > > > 2: If you have another sata-drive avaiable, exchange it with the hd that you > > experiences low writing speed with. If the other hd also writes slow, there > > is probably your raid-controller and drives for it that causes the problem. > > Otherwise, your hd is probably broken. > > > > * hd = HardDrive ; mobo = MOtherBOard. > > Just before I read your message, I was doing exactly what you said, > and the results are astounding: > > 1: My disk in another machine goes fast (received a 3 GB file in about > 2 min). > > 2: Other SATA disk in my machine goes fast too. event, i'm sorry to say. I beleive the only way out of this will cost money. That is the price of a new sata raid card. Doesn't know if this info can help you (probably not): A couple of months ago I had a problem with my internal raid controller. My mobo is "Abit KG7-RAID" and has a "HighPoint HPT3xx ATA RAID Controller" on it. I bought a new 160Gib hd on the raid controller and therefor i had to upgrade the bios. In my case, the bios upgrade program upgraded both the main bios and the bios on the raid controller. When i installed the 160 gib hd, my windows 2000 sp4 didn't see more than 128 Gib when the disc was atached onto the raid controller. But when I swapped the disk over to the IDE2 (as slave as the cd-player was the master) for testing, windows (and in bios) the disc shows up as a 160 Gib hd. I swapped the disc back onto the raid-controller, and decided to find out what caused the problem. Next time i rebootet my computer I went into the raid controller bios screen (before windows loads) by clicking Ctrl + H. Then i saw that the raid controller actually recognised the whole disk. hd shows up as a 160 Gib hd. Now i understand it was a windows problem. It shows up that i had to upgrade the driver to the raid controller after upgrading the bios. After that everything seems to work fine. (exept a rare problem: when mounting a cd image using daemon tools that is stored on a disk that is atachet to the raid controller, windows hangs! It never happends if the image is located on a drive that is atached to IDE1 or IDE2. Just when writing this i got an idea (sort of the last thing you can try). Eliminate the posibility that it is a windows problem: *Make sure you have at least one a fat32 partition on both disks. *Make a big file (filesize >= 500 Mb) onto the hd that works fine. *boot into dos, using a win98 startup floppy. *copy the file from the god hd into the bad hd and see if the copy process goes slow. Or if it exists a benchmark program that can run under dos, try it. That was all i could grab up from my head now. No more ideas. Empty. Hope this info can help : ) > Oops! Seems that your mobo and hd simply doesn't like each other. A rare This is what I was afraid of. How much could (or should) it cost?> event, i'm sorry to say. I beleive the only way out of this will cost money. > That is the price of a new sata raid card. Show quoteHide quote > Doesn't know if this info can help you (probably not): This test showed it's not a Windows problem. I took a 1.64 GB file> A couple of months ago I had a problem with my internal raid controller. My > mobo is "Abit KG7-RAID" and has a "HighPoint HPT3xx ATA RAID Controller" on > it. I bought a new 160Gib hd on the raid controller and therefor i had to > upgrade the bios. In my case, the bios upgrade program upgraded both the > main bios and the bios on the raid controller. When i installed the 160 gib > hd, my windows 2000 sp4 didn't see more than 128 Gib when the disc was > atached onto the raid controller. But when I swapped the disk over to the > IDE2 (as slave as the cd-player was the master) for testing, windows (and in > bios) the disc shows up as a 160 Gib hd. I swapped the disc back onto the > raid-controller, and decided to find out what caused the problem. Next time > i rebootet my computer I went into the raid controller bios screen (before > windows loads) by clicking Ctrl + H. Then i saw that the raid controller > actually recognised the whole disk. hd shows up as a 160 Gib hd. > Now i understand it was a windows problem. It shows up that i had to > upgrade the driver to the raid controller after upgrading the bios. After > that everything seems to work fine. (exept a rare problem: when mounting a > cd image using daemon tools that is stored on a disk that is atachet to the > raid controller, windows hangs! It never happends if the image is located on > a drive that is atached to IDE1 or IDE2. > > Just when writing this i got an idea (sort of the last thing you can try). > Eliminate the posibility that it is a windows problem: > *Make sure you have at least one a fat32 partition on both disks. > *Make a big file (filesize >= 500 Mb) onto the hd that works fine. > *boot into dos, using a win98 startup floppy. > *copy the file from the god hd into the bad hd and see if the copy process > goes slow. Or if it exists a benchmark program that can run under dos, try > it. (1.768.831.448 bytes) and took more than 13 minutes to be copied. Surprisingly, it took 9 minutes to be copied back (after deleted) to the PATA disk. (???) > That was all i could grab up from my head now. No more ideas. Empty. Hope Thank you Geir for all your help.> this info can help : ) 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
