SATA to SATA transfer speed for 975x PUE

hi guys, i'm using this 975x PUE currently and having this problem. when i tried to copy large data files from a SATA HDD to another SATA HDD it always takes very long time to complete. ofcoz both HDDs are internal and no RAIDS card installed.
eg : copy files about 160GB size take more than 12hrs..
i think it shouldnt take such a long time to copy such huge file. this dont happen to me in my previous pc. can anyone advise pls?

thanks hoshigami, to be honest your pc spec is as good as anyone else but i hope you have sata2 hdd and not sata1 as they are much faster than sata1 when it comes to transferring of data. also i assume your ddr2 is ddr2 800.
when i cloned about 30gb from one hdd to another hdd it took about 25 minutes therefore 160 should not take more than 2 hours in fact much less as cloning is slower process than just copying..
as far as bios is concerned there is no parameter in which it can speed up transfer of data but what you can do is go into bios then click on default setting then click yes and save and exit. and also before copying you defrag your hdd a few times or use speeditup [link below] for further defraging.
http://www.geardownload.com/system/speeditup-free-highly-recommended.html
also do you have FAT32 or NTFS file management., also your hdd 7200 RpM or 5400 RPM.
i think your prob lies with the fact you try to copy 160gb in one go by doing that large chunk of data is scattered on your hdd without being defraged.
i would first copy about 20 to 30gb then defrag hdd a few times then copy further 30gb and defrag....and so on..
to be honest i can not think of anything else . lets see what others have to say. good luck

Similar Messages

Transfer speeds for internal drive/FireWire

I have a 2 yr old PowerMac G5 with a single 160 Gb hard drive, so I have an internal drive bay available that has a 150 MBps SATA controler. Does that mean I won't get the expected speed from one of the big Seagate or Maxtor internal SATA drives with 1.5 or 3 Gbps transfer capacity?
If that's true, would I get faster transfers using an external drive via FireWire 800?
Thanks!

The maximum transfer speed of the 1.5 Gbps is actually about 1.2 Gbps (80% efficiency), or 150 MBps. So, in theory the 3 Gbps interface would be about twice as fast.
However, no single drive can achieve throughput at even the 1.2 Gbps level, so you're really not missing anything if you put in a drive with a 3 Gbps interface on it.
FW800 is 800 Mbps or 100 MBps at 100% efficiency. Real world transfer speeds would be in the 80MBps range at best. That's also a pretty tough speed to reach for a single drive. My 10,000 rpm 150GB Raptor drive can benchmark at or above that level, but many drives won't be able to.

Too slow transfer speed for Toshiba 3.0

Hi there
i just purchased a toshiba 3.0 external hdd.
I use windows 7 genuine.
My pc specs are pretty ok cos i am able to run heavy games like crysis 2.
The problem is, My external hdd has slow transfer rates. This problem i started facing aroung 3 months ago. My hdd is out of warranty.
My USB ports are ok and i connect it to primary port.
The transfer speeds are just around 10MBPS and sometimes it drops to KBPS!!!!
Also, it does not copy some files and gives error "Failed to read from source disk" or something like that.
There is no Virus in it, I have enabled write-cache. I have defragged it.
My OS is fine and also, i checked it on other OSes.
Also, i have tried using "check disk for errors" with proper procedure but it hangs somewhere in the middle after it processes 500000 sectors or so.
I got my HDD from my cousin as he no more used PC and without any cover so i dont have any idea of model (although if there is any utility to find model then please notify me).
Also, it worked fine during then. Me and my cousin are from India only.
How can i fix this issue?
Please help me.
Message was edited by: Jaskaran
null

Please dont understand me wrong but if the case is urgent call Toshiba hotline in your country or contact nearest Toshiba service provider.
This is user-to-user forum only.

Speedfan Configuration for 975X PUE !

Does anyone please have a link to where I can download the Speedfan configuration for the 975X PUE ?
Thankyou

Hello Jack The Newbie,
Each motherboard has to be configured differently within the Speedfan settings in order for the software to give correct readings.
The Speedfan website provides configuration settings for hundreds of different motherboards from all manufacturers but not the MSI 975X. I have no idea how to configure Speedfan myself and so was hoping to be able to download the settings from somewhere !
Thankyou for the post

Vista Drivers for 975x PUE?

So I've decided I've procrastinated enough and I'm going to install the latest Vista beta. Are there Vista drivers for the 975X PUE yet?

Quote from: Vaniireq on 15-November-06, 12:35:18
I tried Vista beta...
I hated it..
I am a gamer..
I have a good pc and nice graphics card but...
Games run much slower on Vista..
Frame rates are terrible...
Even with the Vista Nvidia drivers, games were terrible..
A word to the wise:
If you play games or do graphic stuff, stay away from Vista since even Microsoft admits that right now, gaming will be slower on Vista...
Hope that helps someone...
Be safe and have fun...
Of course it runs slower. It's a new OS. It takes more resources to run. That's the way it's always been. I remember when XP came out, and everyone was horrified that the minimum was 128, and they didn't understand why everything was so slow on that monster machine that ran so fast under 98.

Slow Transfer Speeds For File Transfer Manager 5.0 Build 0032

I have a 20Mbit internet connection. When I download from the Microsoft download site I can get files downloading at reported speeds of up to 1.7 Mbytes per second.
When downloading from the TechNet Benefits section I have to use the Transfer Manager and I can only get speeds that vary between 30-80 Kbytes per second. Rarely any faster.
I am using XPPro & IE7 straight out onto the Internet via my router / firewall. No proxy server.
What can I do to speed the process up or bypass the File Download Manager?
Regards.

Thanks for your feedback Tekky. FYI there is also a forum specifically for TechNet Website Feedback which is the more appropriate place for TechNet Subscriptions questions at http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en/tnfeedback/threads/
There are many suggestions in this post about improving your network speeds when downloading from MSDN and TechNet subscriptions sites. Here is one more place to look for tips, which we have linked to from our Downloads and Product Keys FAQ (MSDN version, TechNet version):
The website for the Microsoft File Transfer Manager, particularly their troubleshooting page which includes additional discussion on configuring the FTM and on slow transfer speeds.
As Julie stated above, you can call TechNet Customer support and they can take you through some additional troubleshooting and diagnostic steps to assist. Julie has linked to the support phone numbers in her reply.
Thanks,
Mike Kinsman

[solved] Intel 5300 slow network transfer speed

Heya,
I'm having trouble with my WiFi card Intel 5300 AGN and i hope you can help me.
It's the transfer speed in linux that bugs me. While I get 9 MB/s in Windows I can't for the life of me get more than 2.5 MB/s transfer rate in linux. And this is only if I use NFS4 and turn off the wifi power saving feature. Samba/CIFS gives me transfer speeds of no more than 0.4 MB/s.
The problem has to be somewhere in my linux software/configuration. But where?
I don't have much experience with WiFi configuration in Linux so mine should be pretty vanilla. No manual change of frequencies, channels and the likes. I simply use netcfg to connect and sometimes iwconfig to toggle the power saving feature.
Here's what iwconfig shows me right now while copying a big file:
wlan0 IEEE 802.11abgn ESSID:"bett"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: 00:14:D1:C7:43:C4
Bit Rate=243 Mb/s Tx-Power=15 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=61/70 Signal level=-49 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:11922 Invalid misc:2 Missed beacon:0
As you can see, power management is disabled. The link quality is very good and the bit rate is at 243 Mbps (which should give me about 15 MBps right?). Yet the transfer rate is only 2 MBps, sometimes dropping as low as 0.7 MBps, sometimes spiking to 4.5 MBps for a second or two.
What can I do to improve my network speed?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
demian
Last edited by demian (2011-04-09 04:00:49)

Thanks for the reply zvxy.
I'm running the most current from [core], version 2.6.37.5-1.
Disabling the N mode improved transfer rates for CIFS/SMB shares. They are the same as with NFS now which is around 2.5 MB/s. Transfer speed for NFS stayed the same.
I'll try the kernel from [testing] and report back later.
// I've tested 2.6.38.2-1 a little bit now and as long as i don't disable wireless N i get transfer rates of up to 12 MB/s with NFS4. That's more than enough for me and i hope it stays that way. The downside is that transfer rate for CIFS is only 1 MB/s.
If i disable wireless n mode NFS transfer rates drop to ~2.8 MB/s while CIFS transfer rates go up to ~2.4 MB/s.
Guess I'll just have to stick with NFS (not that i don't mind but it's already thrown me some "stale" error messages with the new kernel ... i can't seem to catch a break ).
I'll consider this issue solved. Thanks!
Last edited by demian (2011-04-09 04:00:30)

975X PUE: SATA vs IDE Combinations: 2+2, 4, or 1+3?

Hello,
I searched but didn't find info. For a new build with a 975X PUE, what is the optimal configuration of IDE/SATA drives. I want to have a configuation like:
DRIVE PURPOSE SATA or IDE?
C: VISTA OS ?
D: Data drive 2 SATA, RAID1
E: Backup for Data ?
My question is: Should I use SATA for drives C and E or IDE? Or one of each? Is there a general rule for which is preferred? All things being equal, I prefer SATA since cables are smaller.
Thx.
Scott
PS C and E will likely be single-drive, non-RAID.

Quote from: jsmartin22 on 16-June-07, 14:51:31
I thought perhaps there would be a difference data rates between the IDE/SATA, which arise only when you reach a specific # of SATA drives--in which case it might be better to begin using IDE. Looks like I was wrong. Thx.
Scott
SATA II 300 has 3.0 Gbit/sec available per port, so the number of SATA ports used should not make a difference. There is a theoretical advantage in using SATA, as it is a serial connection instead of a parallel connection with PATA.
Furthermore, because of your RAID 1 setup, you will be using AHCI mode for the onboard Intel controller. The Intel Matrix Storage driver (used for AHCI mode) might give you a couple percents extra drive performance over an IDE interface, even when using single drives.
So SATA would be the way to go...

975X PUE SATA RAID Windows XP Blue Screen Install

Hi,
I've just purchased a new MSI 975X PUE motherboard and am trying to install Windows on it.
I have connected 2x WD Raptor 36GB drives, and set them up in a RAID 0 array using the Ctrl+I RAID BIOS utility. I have set the SATA config in the BIOS to RAID mode, and turned off the other SATA controller... The RAID BIOS detects the array ok after it has been set up, and shows it as OK.
When I boot from a Windows XP SP2 CD I press F6 and choose the RAID Driver for ICH7R RAID. Windows tells me that it already has a driver but this version is newer, so I say to use the one on the floppy (I have tried without doing this and Windows does not detect any Hard Drives at all).
Once I have loaded the drivers it continues loading the other drivers for the setup, and then gets to "Loading Windows Setup", here is waits for a minute or so and the blue screens.... The stop code is 0x7B (INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE)...
I have upgraded the BIOS from 7.0 to 7.1 (not 7.2 yet as I have read about problems with it).
I've tried various versions of the drivers from different locations, and each time it blue screens in exactly the same place... I'm beginning to get very annoyed with this as I shouldn't be expected to find my own drivers when there are ones supplied on the CD...
Is anyone able to suggest what I could do?
Thanks
[EDIT] Also I have tried an install of Windows Vista Beta and that installed fine using the drivers from the CD...

I must say again that the problem is located in the memory modules. As suggested by Hans before, try running memtest86 first,
http://filexoom.com/files/2006/11/1/41824/memtest86%2B-1.65.floppy.zip
and sometimes even if tests runs fine, doesn't mean that memory is OK. It just might be that that type of memory doesn't fit within your MB. As I mention before, my friend was using Corsair for his MB(getting the message INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE), and after replacing with A-Data(definitely lower quality memory), everything went fine. So, try with another memory.
As for Murphyman, when you use the yellow connector, you are using the Jmicron controller,witch asks for RAID drivers before you use the device installed on it. The blue IDE controller is controlled by Intel's ICH7DH, and no RAID driver is need. So, try connecting the DVD drive on the blue connector, and see if will work.

My MacBook Pro 2010 unable to link with SSD at SATA 2, 3 Gb speed

I have a MacBook Pro 13-inch Mid-2010 that I used with the standard 5400 RPM HDD for about a year. Last week I decided to replace it with an SSD, the Corsair Force GT 120 GB to be more precise. I knew that my MacBook Pro model only supports SATA I & SATA II & that the SSD is backwards compatible. I expected (and still expect) the SSD to link up at SATA II 3 Gb speed.
However, System Profiler gives the following information:
NVidia MCP89 AHCI:
Vendor:          NVidia
Product:          MCP89 AHCI
Link Speed:          3 Gigabit
Negotiated Link Speed:          1.5 Gigabit
Description:          AHCI Version 1.30 Supported
Corsair Force GT:
Capacity:          120,03 GB (120.034.123.776 bytes)
Model:          Corsair Force GT
Revision:          1.3.3
Benchmark tests show my write & read speeds are at about 100 & 110-130 MB/s. I have searched for a while on this and other forums and not been able to find a way to get negotiated link speed at 3 Gb and then to check whether this solves the rather sluggish performance.
Some extra info that might be useful:
-The 1.3.3 firmware of the SSD is the latest available. There are also no updates available via Apple Software Update.
-The SSD is the only drive in my system. After booting to the Mac OS X Lion DVD I had created, I used the disk tool to partition the new drive with the settings at GUID partition table & HFS+ Journaled. I haven't experienced any other problems.
-I have reset the SMC, PRAM & NVRAM. This didn't change anything.
-I haven't installed any Windows version using Boot Camp (yet).
-System has Boot ROM Version:          MBP71.0039.B0B and SMC Version (system):          1.62f6
Thank you in advance.

Guys, have any of you tried these:
http://support.apple.com/downloads/MacBook_Pro_EFI_Firmware_Update_1_7_
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/22/macbook-pro-update-rights-the-wrong-enables-3 gbps-sata-transfer/
Or solved the problem any other way? I'm thinking on buying a SSD.
Thanks, and cheers

Can G4 PowerMac MDD take advantage of SATA II hard drive speed?

A PowerMac G4 MDD has 33Mhz PCI slots and a 167Mhz bus -- correct? Can this architecture take full advantage of a PCI SATA II controller card (if it exists for a Mac) and a connected SATA II hard drive w. 16mb cache operating at 3Gb/s? Or even a 1.5Gb/s SATA I drive? Thanks.

Hi-
Or am I trying to cram a V8 Hemi engine into my Mini Cooper, but just hooking it up to my 4-spark plug ignition system to run it on four cylinders?
Aw, you outa get at least 6 cylinders worth out of it...and it will be one mean Mini C!
The SATA won't run at it's potential, there is no doubt. But, you will see performance increases over the ATA drives, this is for sure..
In my Sawtooth, after I installed the SATA drives, the speed increase was palpable. The SATA drives have better performance characteristics than ATA, and even without full data transfer rates, the increase in bandwidth, the speed of the drives, and the increase in cache definitely help performance.
As for the question of SATA vs. SATA II, SATA II drives are all backward compatible to earlier SATA standard, so there is no reason to "limit" yourself to early SATA. Most all controllers are SATA II standard, and the SATA II drives are the latest in technology, and give the greatest benefit.
I would recommend the Firmtek Seritek line of controllers. Bootable, and reliable.

SATA vs. IDE speeds

I’ve had my system up and running since January with no major issues; all stable, etc. However, I noticed no appreciable difference when using my IDE WD drive vs. my SATA WD drive so decided to benchmark their performance. Both drives were virtually the same; transfer min. IDE 33.9, SATA 32.8; transfer max. IDE 58.0, SATA 56.4; burst IDE 81.5, SATA 98.3; access IDE 12.8, SATA 13.8. I think I might have a problem, shouldn’t SATA burst approach the PCI bus max. of 133mb/sec.? Went to Device Manager and see only IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers listed; shouldn’t I be seeing a SCSI controller for the SATA drive? The SATA drive is fully functional just not as fast as I expected; do I have wrong drivers installed? Please ref. my profile for configuration.

Quote from: kakarocht on 20-March-06, 17:06:40
Some says that SATA is better cos of the speed and PATA is quite slow than SATA and also depending the speed of the HDD that you're looking for.
well, that's marketing. there is no hard drive in the world that passes 133 mb/s speed for the UDMA-6 p-ata mode, let alone the 150mb/s or 300mb/s for the s-ata1 and 2. all those speeds are teoretical maxes for the controler. if you take 2 harddrives which are similar and from the same manufacturer, you will notice that the only thing that's different is the electronics. speeds will be identical for p-ata and s-ata versions.

Shopping for new HD: Difference between SATA and SATA II? / Compatibility?

I'm looking for a new HD to replace the original, now failing Maxtor drive in my G5 tower (1.8 Ghz dual processor, purchased in Aug. 2004), and have just about settled on the Western Digital Caviar SE16 series. It seems there are two types -- SATA and SATA II -- and I'm not sure about how to make a decision on which particular WD model to buy.
Will either type work in my machine? Or would the SATA II have potential compatibility problems? I read somewhere in these forums that someone with a G5 had bought an SATA II drive, and it wouldn't run with his system. (He said he had to reset some jumper switches to reduce the transfer rate of the drive [??], but now I'm told elsewhere that SATA drives don't have jumper switches.)
Kinda confusing trying to choose the right drive, so any help is appreciated.
Also, am wondering if there are any connectivity parts (power cable, SATA cable, screws, etc.) in particular that wouldn't come supplied with the drive. (I'll be ordering a retail drive, not OEM or refurb, so hoping it might come with everything I need.)
TIA,
Steve

Tom,
Thanks for the info. I don't see the 250GB w/ 16MB cache drive that I was looking for, but OWC has a very good price on the 500 GB drive. A few questions for clarification:
- Re: +"The later model SATA II drives often have a jumper to limit transfer rates to 150."+ -- Any tips on finding out if these jumper switches are present in a particular drive? OWC doesn't specify this, and this info seems to be generally hard to find.
- Re: +"...some are SATA I/II which are designed to work on both types."+ -- Same problem here... I'm not finding any info in the various drives' specs on this. To make this easier on myself, I'd rather get a drive that I don't have to mess with jumper switches, or at least be able to determine if a particular drive will present SATA I / II issues. Any additional info you (or others) can provide may be helpful.
- Will upgrading to a drive with 16MB cache give me an improvement in performance? And are there any compatibility issues with my particular G5? (I'm assuming a 16MB cache drive will work fine with my machine, and based on my reading they do provide a speed boost.)
Thanks for any info...
Steve

2008 - How to make the SATA drives run full speed with Bootcamp and XP ?

Has anyone found a way - after all this time - of repairing a 2006 install of Windows XP SP2 - or in someway fixing the rather slow SATA drive problems?
I have not upgraded to 10.5 - but would if the new Bootcamp somehow (via new drivers??) fixed the problem!
My machine is now 2 years old ( 2.66 4 core ) and I finally need XP's full speed for a project - but most of the posts I've seen are fro 2006 and expired.
Help!
-Glen

And again, my objective to is get 'full speed' from the SATA drives while running XP.
-Glen

Will the1TB SATA Hard Disk Drive Kit for Mac Pro now in the Mac Store work with my Mac Pro1,1?

Will the 1TB SATA Hard Disk Drive Kit for Mac Pro now in the Mac Store work with my Mac Pro1,1? My details of my Mac Pro is as follows:
Model Name:          Mac Pro
Model Identifier:          MacPro1,1
Processor Name:          Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed:          2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors:          2
Total Number Of Cores:          4
L2 Cache (per processor):          4 MB
Memory:          6 GB
Bus Speed:          1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version:          MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version (system):          1.7f10
Hardware UUID:          00000000-0000-1000-8000-0017F2059956

It will say "green" and use less power, park its head probably, and while early units had some trouble they have evolved. Variable rpm or slower rpm also. They can be much less expenisve way to add storage.
WD Caviar Green
WD Green 2TB
For the system, 640GB is a nice size. Look for 64MB cache to help insure your drive is the latest models which will also say "6G SATA 3" which is fine.
WD Caviar Black 1TB 6Gb
WD Black Caviar 2TB
larger means higher density platter, I find the 1TB and larger Blacks to run hotter/warmer and companys want drives to be able to run warmer or with less cooling. - but for really cold drives other than SSD I have found all my WD 10K VRs to have the absolute coldest temps.
Just noticed Amazon having better prices than Newegg on 1TB - and WD and Hitachi.
Green for your external backup, for media libraries that are not high volume access, to run cool and less power. Enterprise for system and performance. TimeMachine sometimes makes a poor backup method with some green cases.

SATA to SATA transfer speed for 975x PUE

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for