Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:40:43 -0500 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= <askbill@conducive.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Wiki for discussing P35/IHC9(R)/SATA issues set up Message-ID: <47308AFB.9090000@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: <47525.209.159.98.1.1194362930.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com> References: <472EB211.7050001@delphij.net> <472EEADF.1000008@gmail.com> <472F466E.8050405@delphij.net> <472F5846.1020304@gmail.com> <472F5D9A.9050900@delphij.net> <472FCC15.9040903@gmail.com> <472FD0FB.9090608@delphij.net> <473001E7.2090201@yandex.ru> <473017DF.7070105@gmail.com> <62151.71.164.232.42.1194356793.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com> <20071106144749.GA91218@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <47525.209.159.98.1.1194362930.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rusty Nejdl wrote: >> Does SATA300, but has the same "feature" as the OP's Seagate drive: >> a small jumper that limits the drive to SATA150 unless removed. >> See below PDF. >> >> http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e2af99f4fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US >> http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371h.pdf >> > > Jeremy, > > Thanks! Like Aryeh, I missed the jumper. I'll test this out tonight when > I get home. > > Rusty > BTW - in a recent test of 2.5" high-capacity HDD, it was noted that SATA required significantly more power than PATA. Well 'significant' to a laptop on battery, anyway. Given that single-drive setups seldom stress even UDMA 133 over the course of reasonable time spans, does anyone know if: A) SATA 300 needs yet-again more power than SATA 150? B) running down-shifted to SATA 150 might actually be a better plan anyway in some circumstances? Easier to maintain data integrity comes to mind as well as power budget. Just curious... Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47308AFB.9090000>