Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:30:15 -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: <4731AFD7.3070600@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: <52072.71.164.232.42.1194411864.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> <47525.209.159.98.1.1194362931.squirrel@mail.ringofsaturn.com> <52072.71.164.232.42.1194411864.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 >> > > I removed the jumpers per the doc and unfortunately, there was no change: > > ad12: 715404MB <Seagate ST3750640AS 3.AAK> at ata6-master SATA150 > ad16: 715404MB <Seagate ST3750640AS 3.AAK> at ata8-master SATA150 > > ATA channel 5: > Master: ad10 <WDC WD1500ADFD-00NLR1/20.07P20> Serial ATA v1.0 > Slave: no device present > ATA channel 6: > Master: ad12 <ST3750640AS/3.AAK> Serial ATA II > Slave: no device present > ATA channel 7: > Master: acd0 <LITE-ON DVDRW LH-20A1L/BL01> Serial ATA v1.0 > Slave: no device present > ATA channel 8: > Master: ad16 <ST3750640AS/3.AAK> Serial ATA II > Slave: no device present > > It seems there is either a configuration I'm missing or the kernel is not > picking this up properly. > > Sincerely, > Rusty Nejdl > What is being reported quite aside, have you (or anyone else) run any tests to see if there is a before/after difference in actual performance? It wouldn't be the first time that the messages didn't match the reality. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4731AFD7.3070600>