From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 22 16:44:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD1E16A4CF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:44:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91.asp.att.net [204.127.203.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38ED43D41 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:44:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from [10.0.0.4] (12-216-243-9.client.mchsi.com[12.216.243.9]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id <20041122164448m9100cesvue>; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:44:48 +0000 Message-ID: <41A2177F.4070401@math.missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:44:47 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041116 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <16798.12075.465147.307112@canoe.dclg.ca> <864qjixdpi.wl%sf@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <864qjixdpi.wl%sf@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: List of fake vs. real SATA drives. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:44:49 -0000 FUJISHIMA Satsuki wrote: > Currently native SATA drives are still not so popular. There are: > Seagate Barracuda ATA V, 7200.7, 7200.8 I have one of these, and I am really impressed by its performance. I added one to my computer, which came with a Maxtor 6Y080L0. My main disk intensive operation is creating the CTM deltas (as in CTM which is an alternative to CVSUP for people behind unfriendly firewalls). The performance difference was somewhat collosal, as in something like 3 times faster. To be honest, I am still at a loss to explain why the Seagate did so very much better - maybe it is the 8M cache as compared to the 2M cache. The Seagate 7200.7 had similar performance to a Seagate 160MHz SCSI drive that I have on another computer. Stephen