From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 24 05:22:33 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31FF37B43E
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bragi.housing.ufl.edu (bragi.housing.ufl.edu [128.227.47.18])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03CF43FEA
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from WillS@housing.ufl.edu)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:21:39 -0400
Message-ID: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED8DB3044@bragi.housing.ufl.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: questions on S-ATA and ICH5 (now owns hardware :)
Thread-Index: AcNR236wVEVMrAWrTgaMRg3YwQxrfwAAkCiA
From: "Will Saxon" <WillS@housing.ufl.edu>
To: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@mac.com>,
	"Soeren Schmidt" <sos@spider.deepcore.dk>
cc: John Reynolds <johnjen@reynoldsnet.org>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: questions on S-ATA and ICH5 (now owns hardware :)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:22:35 -0000

> Yeah.  My drive shows up as UDMA133 also.  What I did notice is that
> my WD Raptor was slightly outperformed a few times on UFS2 by=20
> my actual
> ATA-100 Western Digital drive.  This seems somewhat bad as the Raptor
> costs a hell of a lot more and one would hope that it would pound the
> ATA-100 drive pretty thoroughly.
>=20
> Even the CPU overheads on both drives were about the same.  Maybe its=20
> that
> 8MB caching :).  I haven't found a good reason yet.

Keep in mind that you are dealing with 36GB vs. 60 or 80GB platter =
density. The Raptor ought to be quicker but the older WD drive could be =
faster. Especially in long sequential reads.=20

-Will