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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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... Billhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47308AFB.9090000>