Slow SATA Drives

Current setup
K8N Neo (V1)
AMD 4600+ Dual Core
2 X 1G Apacer DDR2 800
IDE Master DVD RAM Drive
IDE Slave DVD ROM
SATA1 Seagate 160 Gig - Setup for 3Gig/sec transfer - Boot drive with Windows XP (SP2)
SATA2 Seagate 160 Gig - Setup for 3Gig/sec transfer
SATA3 IBM 120Gig IDE drive connected via IDE to SATA2 adaptor - used as storage only
Bios setup as Optimium
Using Sandra, all components are functioning according to spec.
However when tesing the transfer speeds from the SATA2 drives, transer speeds of 75Mps arte shown.
Is this the best one can expect or is there a way of setting up the bios to improve these transfer speeds????

Hi!
I understand that you use the twe seagates as stand-alone drives, you did not set them up in a RAID, right? Then, the speeds you see are normal. Try with HD Tach as well to see what that program reports.
If you want some better performance, you can setup both seagates as a RAID-0.

Similar Messages

Using slower SATA drives for FRA and archivelogs

1. I am looking for some advice on storage tiering on a SAN for my oracle database. I currently have a SAN with all 15K SAS drives and I am looking to expand on the SAN and add a bank of SATA 7.2 K drives. I would like to locate our FRA including our oracle “disk to disk” backups and our archive logs to these 7.2 SATA drives and I was wondering what if any effect this would have on our production database?
2. Also I was also considering placing a development instance entirely on the 7.2K drives and was wondering what to expect for performance regarding this?
Thanks

Thanks for the link. And on page 30: "The weakest link determines the IO throughput."
Of course, this ballpark back of the envelope rough approximation can be blown apart by a couple of plan changes in the sql. And the sql is the most common reason for performance problems.
Speed of slower disks can make a difference, which difference can vary based on how close to saturation the I/O is. In a lightly loaded system, reports and such may simply take twice as long. As either cpu run queue lengths or i/o wait times increase, things can go south fast. If a development system is not a very close copy of a production system, it may be difficult to replicate performance problems. Of course any little thing can do that too. It's kind of rare in my experience to have a close hardware copy, YMMV.
Craig Shallahamer and Cary MIllsap have written some books you may be interested in if you haven't seen them. Find Cary's "Thinking clearly about performance" paper.

Slow SATA Drive Performance

Hi,
I recently installed a WD 200GB SATA drive as my boot drive. Partition 80GB as C: (85% free space) and balance space as D:
I notice that its much slower in starting up my XP as compare to my earlier WD40Gb IDE drive. Any ideals what could be the reason for that?
Thanks

Your new drive may just be 'slower' than the old one. If they are both 7200RPM disks, it is likely that the older/smaller drive has a faster access time and/or transfer rate. This is not alwayst the case but it is possible.
Also, ensure that you have the latest nVidia nForce2 drivers installed. If you know the new drive should be 'as fast as' or 'faster than' the old drive, then check the settings that JeanGuy suggested, and if they are all set correctly, look into reverting your nVidia IDE driver to an earlier version.

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

Extremely slow accessing folders in explorer (like 1 or 2 minutes) on SATA drive

OK, where to start ... About a year ago I bought this motherboard. I have one 80 GB WD IDE and one SATA WD 160 GB drive on the integrated Promise controller. I loaded the Promise driver that came with the motherboard and everything was working, no problems accessing either drive. I noticed that that there was a newer driver for the Promise controller so I downloaded it and installed it. After that, whenever I tried to expand folders in explorer on the SATA drive, it would sit there from anywhere from 1 to 2 minutes before showing the folders underneath it. So I reverted back to the old driver and everything worked normal again.
This past weekend I decided to wipe my machine before applying Windows SP2. So I formatted the 80 GB WD IDE drive (I didn't touch the SATA drive, I use that primarily for data storage). I installed Win XP Pro with an integrated SP2. After installing I couldn't see the SATA drive because the driver hadn't been loaded yet. So I went to MSI's site and downloaded the Promise driver and installed it and rebooted. I could see the drive but the same access problem occured. It either takes a minute or two to browse the folders on the drive or sometimes it just hangs when trying to access folders. I found my old Promise driver disk that came with the mobo originally but after installing that I still had the same problem. I then re-installed again but this time I used the F6 to load the Promise driver (from the disk that came with the motherboard) during the windows installation. I still had the same problem.
I searched the forums here but the hits I get are people complaining that their SATA drives aren't performing as fast as their IDE's etc. On the net I did find one guy who has the exact same problem as I do but he didn't have a solution to the problem and no one posted a possible solution to his problem. Anyone have any ideas or have experienced a similar issue?
P.S. - I'm not overclocking my PC and I have the latest BIOS revision.

I've had this exact problem from time to time too, and am having it again after a fresh install of WinXP (updated to SP2).
I find it occurs when I boot up with a DVD data disc in my Memorex DVD writer. Seems to have some thing to do with the Drag-to-Disc software interacting oddly with the OS. This software is part of the Roxio package for managing DVD writers, and comes with the memorex writer.
If I make sure I don't have a disc in the drive, then everything's fine. If I do have one, and simply wait long enough for something to time out in the boot process before logging in and starting to do anything, the problem doesn't appear either. It only shows up if I reboot with a DVD-ROM in the drive (Actually, to be absolutely accurate what was in the drive was a DVD+RW that I had written ordinary files to), log in as soon as I get the login screen, then try and open an explorer window.
If I boot with the drive empty, or go away for ten minutes or so during boot and come back and log in, no problem.
I've got two removable drives in my system, one a DVD writer, the other a straight DVD reader. Both on secondary IDE channel, writer is master, reader is slave. System disc is a 120GB seagate on the ICH5R SATA-2 channel, Promise is configured with a RAID 0+1 array of 4 200GB WD discs (two SATA, two ATA/100 on IDE 3).
Try pulling your CDROM IDE cable so that there is no CD drive in the system, reboot, and see if the problem goes away. You might be having some sort of interference from the secondary IDE channel, or some driver that talks to the CDROM or DVD drive(s) causing problems like I have been.
Good luck, and let us know what results you get from trying this experiment.

Is the slow SATA HD issue still unresolved in latest Bootcamp?

an earlier post by kkapoor indicated lack of support for SATA drives in Win XP, and indicated a fix to a now dead web site. Is the slow SATA still an issue? Will it impair running games in Windows mode( the only use I have for Windows)?

I believe this issue was resolved by the Mac Pro SMC Firmware Update.

Possible to put two or more 3.5 SATA drives in optical bay of early 2008 mac pro?

Hello! A question about expansion really. Here is my iexpansion plan. Wondering if you can see any possible problems?
drive bay 1 - SSD - raid with drive 2
drive bay 2 - SSD - raid with drive 1
These will make the boot drive.
Then...
drive bay 3 - 3.5" sata - raid with drive 4
drive bay 4 - 3.5" sata - raid with drive 3
Two extra internal eSATA ports being extended out with wires to an empty PCI slot, leading to two external 3.5" drives in eSATA interfaced, self-powered enclosures.
Optical Bay - Removing the two currently installed optical drives and replacing with two 3.5" SATA drives. In order to do this I'll need to get some form of ATAPI to SATA adapter as my early 2008 macpro uses the older interface.
So my question is:
Can you see any reason why this would not work and if you can point me towards an adapter that might work for holding/converting the interface of those two 3.5" drives in the optical bay? Will there be enough space for the adapter? I'll probably rig my own bracket for holding the drives there but any suggestions welcome!
Will power become an issue? I'm also running a flashed PC graphics card which uses both of the additional power ports (rather than just one). But other than that nothing extra.
Many thanks for your time!

Hi Hatter,
Thanks for your reply. I'm not so worried about the SSDs as I am about the ability to put 2x3.5" SATA drives into the optical bay and have them fit (I do not want to pay a lot of money for any fancy pieces of metal such as the one you linked) when they necessary PATA-SATA adapter and power supply adapter if attached to them. Have you ever seen someone do this and what adatper did they use? I'm looking at this sort of thing:
http://www.cooldrives.com/satoidecofor.html
I can not put the SSDs in the Optical bay because the slower PATA interface would cut the speed so much it would not be worth it.
Any tips on known reports of 2x 3.5" drives fitting in there would be great, and what adapter was used.
Thanks!

Looking for Answers: Bootcamp, WinXP, SATA drive speed

Hey - I'm wondering if someone can pass along some info. I've yet to upgrade to 10.5 I'm running a 2.66 4-core MacPro under 10.4.11.
I am still running the Bootcamp Beta and my original sp2 install of WinXpPro.
And my SATA drives are dog-dead-slow! I've been looking around the net and most of the SATA/Drive/Bootcamp talk comes from early 2006.
My thought was Bootcamp only installed Windows - and since I have already installed windows (for 2 pieces of graphics software), I wonder if I upgrade to 10.5 and the new Bootcamp, will my drives run at full speed?
Thanks -
Glen

GlenToonz wrote:
Hey - I'm wondering if someone can pass along some info. I've yet to upgrade to 10.5 I'm running a 2.66 4-core MacPro under 10.4.11.
I am still running the Bootcamp Beta and my original sp2 install of WinXpPro.
And my SATA drives are dog-dead-slow! I've been looking around the net and most of the SATA/Drive/Bootcamp talk comes from early 2006.
My thought was Bootcamp only installed Windows - and since I have already installed windows (for 2 pieces of graphics software), I wonder if I upgrade to 10.5 and the new Bootcamp, will my drives run at full speed?
Is ultra DMA mode 5 enabled?
Device Manager -> IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers -> ATA Channel 0 -> Advanced Settings

Filesystem and SATA drive performance

Hi you all,
I'm in the process of installing ArchLinux for the third time on my system and I'm in need for some suggestions. The previous installations went without problems but I have realized that the system was not really tuned for some video stuff I'm working with i.e that I need support for large files on my system. Did a google and found references on xfs system that should do the trick. All went ok and I could work without problems on dv files 10-13 GB in size but suddenly I've realized the abismal low performance of my harddrive when copying files e.g: 20 min for a folder of 512 MB (indeed with multiple folders and small files)!!!. The hardware I'm using is:
AMD Athlon 2500
Gigabyte GA-7VM400AMF (VIA 8237 -sata controller)
Seagate 160 GB SATA harddrive
512 MB ram
-the "hdparm -tT /dev/sda" command gives me:
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1260 MB in 2.00 seconds = 629.77 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 152 MB in 3.01 seconds = 50.43 MB/sec
-the "sdparm /dev/sda" output is:
/dev/sda: ATA ST3160827AS 3.42
Read write error recovery mode page:
AWRE 1
ARRE 1
PER 0
Caching (SBC) mode page:
WCE 1
RCD 0
Control mode page:
SWP 0
-the "sdparm -i --verbose /dev/sda" command output is:
/dev/sda: ATA ST3160827AS 3.42
PQual=0 Device_type=0x0 RMB=0 version=0x05 [SPC-3]
[AERC=0] [TrmTsk=0] NormACA=0 HiSUP=0 Resp_data_format=2
SCCS=0 ACC=0 TGPS=0 3PC=0 Protect=0 BQue=0
EncServ=0 MultiP=0 MChngr=0 [ACKREQQ=0] Addr16=0
[RelAdr=0] WBus16=0 Sync=0 Linked=0 [TranDis=0] CmdQue=0
Device identification VPD page:
Addressed logical unit:
desig_type: vendor specific [0x0], code_set: ASCII
00 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 34 4d 54 30 4MT0
10 30 47 4b 48 0GKH
desig_type: T10 vendor identification, code_set: ASCII
vendor id: ATA
vendor specific: ST3160827AS 4MT00 GKH
-I have the following partitons:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 3918 31471303+ c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/sda2 3919 3930 96390 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 3931 4055 1004062+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 4056 19457 123716565 83 Linux
sda1 partition is with winXP (still using win bootloader)
sda2 is /boot formatted as ReiserFs
sda3 is swap
sda4 is XFS formatted mounted as /
Now I'm preparing to reformat the whole drive, partitioning in the same manner but using JFS on the "/" partiton ....and this is what I would ask you guys:
1. Are the hdparm readings "normal" for my system? Please reply with some of yours if you have sata drives.
2. Please comment the sdparm readings (have no idea what could these be used for..)
3. The reallife test of copying files tells me that there should be a problem on my system -I mean that my vaio laptop with a PATA drive @4200rpm does better. If this is the case what could it be - hardware? sata_via drive (I would be willing to test a proprietary drive if it exists)? filesystem?
Thank you.

Your new drive may just be 'slower' than the old one. If they are both 7200RPM disks, it is likely that the older/smaller drive has a faster access time and/or transfer rate. This is not alwayst the case but it is possible.
Also, ensure that you have the latest nVidia nForce2 drivers installed. If you know the new drive should be 'as fast as' or 'faster than' the old drive, then check the settings that JeanGuy suggested, and if they are all set correctly, look into reverting your nVidia IDE driver to an earlier version.

Please Help: problems with 2nd internal SATA drive on G5

Hello everyone,
I was transferring and deleting very large files from my main drive, a 2nd 250GB SATA internal drive, and an external 250GB FW800 drive recently (about 50GB worth of data transfered), and decided to run disk warrior and repair my permissions/verify disk in disk utilities once completed.
Everything seemed fine until I verified my 2nd internal drive upon which I received the following error: "First Aid Failed" citing "Invalid node structure" and that the volume needs to be repaired. I attempted to Repair disk, though the process stops and I get the same error "Volume could not be repaired because of an error."
This 2nd SATA drive only holds data (I'm a musician so it only holds sample data for streaming in Logic) but it contains allot of information (185GB used of 233GB) which according to my math comes out to about 80% used. This should be acceptable amount, correct? The drive also has Journaling enabled, though I'm not sure if its relevant or not.
What should I do? The drive itself seems to be working fine, but why would disk utility have a problem reading/repairing it if its indeed fine. Should I be worried? The drive is probably no more than 2 years old, so it cant be drive failure yet, can it?
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!
Update: I tried to graph the problem drive again in diskwarrior, and this time an error occurred! This obviously did not happen the first time I used diskwarrior to graph and build a new directory, so something must have happened recently. What could have happened? What should I do?
Message was edited by: Jonathan Timpe

This 2nd SATA drive only holds data (I'm a musician
so it only holds sample data for streaming in Logic)
but it contains allot of information (185GB used of
233GB) which according to my math comes out to about
80% used. This should be acceptable amount, correct?
Yes, that's fine.
The drive also has Journaling enabled, though I'm not
sure if its relevant or not.
Hmm, I think I once had a drive with a directory problem that couldn't be fixed with DiskWarrior without journaling being (temporarily) disabled. After disabling journaling, I used DiskWarrior to Rebuild the drive's directory, then I reenabled journaling.
What should I do? The drive itself seems to be
working fine, but why would disk utility have a
problem reading/repairing it if its indeed fine.
Should I be worried? The drive is probably no more
than 2 years old, so it cant be drive failure yet,
can it?
I'm afraid it could be, I've had drives fail at any time between half a year after purchase up to 3 or more years after. Though often one hears the drive "die", or notices very slow performance due to bad blocks being weeded out, and the S.M.A.R.T. status - visible in Disk Utility (only for internal drives) in the bottom right, when you select a drive (not volume) is an indicator of a harddisk's health as well (though not the most complete, see this hint, or S.M.A.R.T. Guard).
Update: I tried to graph the problem drive again in
diskwarrior, and this time an error occurred! This
obviously did not happen the first time I used
diskwarrior to graph and build a new directory, so
something must have happened recently.
Did you try to repair anything with Disk Utility in the meantime?
What could
have happened? What should I do?
So did the Repair with DiskWarrior not finish? What kind of error was it?
In my experience, DiskWarrior mostly fixed any directory trouble. For more serious cases, see this thread.

Update BIOS SATA drive

I have recently purchased new PC (Hopefully main spec in sig).
The BIOS recognises 4GB of RAM whilst Vista Ultimate only recognises 2GB.
I am trying to update the DIOS using a USB floppy drive and have copied the files across to c:\Temp as suggested in the accompanying instructions.
However, on booting into DOS using the boot disk I am unable to access the c: drive.
I don't want to copy the BIOS update onto the floppy and update from there due to the stark WARNING!!!! in the readme but I want to update the BIOS...
Any suggestions as to a reliable way to get the SATA drive recognised and update the BIOS safely?
Thanks
CBF... noob!

Quote
On boot the motherboard is making a series of 3 slow(ish) beeps.
How many beeps do you get, when you unplug all USB-devices?
Could be USB Status beeps as well.
Quote
Using Vista 32 bit, I am aware that I will not get the full allocation of RAM but have read reports that I should be getting 3-3.5GB available within Vista.
What I fail to see is, how your problem is a BIOS issue. You said, that BIOS shows 4 Gb, right?
In any case, if you really think that you need a BIOS Update use the Forum Flashing tool (use link above).
Latest BIOS can be found here:
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func=downloaddetail&type=bios&maincat_no=1&prod_no=1168

SATA Drives Recommendations

Does anyone have any recommendations on which SATA drive with 100GB or above to use? I don't mind the 5400rpm speed as long as I can have 100GB of storage. Has anyone had the chance to try Hitachi's Travelstar 5k100 SATA drive for $120 on Newegg? I've heard good reports on the 7k100 but not on the 5k100 yet. Just wondering if anyone's had the chance or thought of trying it out.

I should be receiving my new MacBook and aftermarket Seagate 120GB 5400.2 drive by the end of this week or early next week. I read quite a few reviews and SATA hard drive roundups before I made my choice. Some suggested reading is below, but it seems that the Seagate 120GB 5400rpm drives were not much slower than the hitachi 100GB 7200 drives because the increased density of each platter allows the hard drive's read heads to move less to access more data. Since I rarely perform huge file copies, which is where the 7200rpm drives shine, and even 20GB of extra storage will help me, I went that route. Also, the 5400 drives may be slightly less power-hungry, although I'm not sure if that is a statistically significant difference, from reading multiple reviews.
Unfortunately, according to this review, the new SATA toshiba drives aren't faster than the old IDE ones, so it might be a good idea to stay away from those until they are updated again.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/17/newtoshiba_sata_drives_lack_performanceincrease/
Here's a review on the same website that talks about the drive I bought.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/22/speedynotebook_storage_withseagate/
There was another very in-depth review on another website that I consulted before making my purchase, but I can't seem to locate it with google again.

Upgrading SATA drives & putting old drives into firewire enclosure

I just ran out of space on my two 250GB internal drives on my G5. These were the BTO units, Maxtor 6Y250M0 and I understand they have a 8MB buffer and 9.3ms seek time.
I am planning on purchasing two 500GB drives to replace them. I have a few performance questions and would like to solicit some opinions on some drives.
First, I understand jumping to 500GB would really slow things down, is this true? What about 750GB?
Second, what brand/model would be recommended? I store music, videos, and lots of pictures plus I play heavy processor load games.
Third, SATA 300? My machine is only 150 but I do plan on upgrading one day to a Mac Pro... Will the slowdown be worse than just buying a 150?
Forth, I am planning on purchasing a firewire enclosure for the two older drives, preferably a dual unit, any recommendations there. (For aesthetic purposes I would like something that looks great). I thought about USB but my machine is only USB 1.0 and I just can't bring myself to that slowdown.
Any recommendations and responses are greatly appreciated. I used to sell this stuff for years but have been out of the loop for sometime now...
5 2.0DP w/ 4.5GB, 23", 6800 Ultra Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Thank you japamac, The hatter and tobszanski for your ideas and help. Here is what I ended up doing.
I purchased the OWC Mercury Elite-AL FireWire 800/400 + USB2 Pro Dual SATA drive enclosure to hold both of the Maxtor drives that came with my machine:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MEFW924AL2K/
This enclosure is great, looks like the G5 and has all the connectivity I was looking for. I then purchased two Maxtor MaXLine Pro 500 SATA II drives:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Maxtor/7H500F0/
I used SuperDuper! to copy on the new 500GB and now I am in business, with plenty of space to spare. SuperDuper is a great app: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/13803
I was going to use Carbon Copy Cloner but I was reading somewhere that they haven't updated it to run with 10.4 but I am more than satisfied using SuperDuper.
Thank you all for your help....
5 2.0DP w/ 4.5GB, 23", 6800 Ultra Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Old SATA Drives in new MacPro

Hello,
I just bought a new MacPro desktop and had an old Dual G5 with two internal SATA drives. (Western Digital factory drives). When I got the new MacPro I took the old hard drives out of the G5 and put them into the MacPro. Now whenever I click on the secondary drive (the old one), I can hear the computer start up the drive, but it takes two to three minutes before the Finder window appears. This occurs any time a program or Finder tries to look inside the old hard drive. A lot of the content on the drive is old Adobe projects (which I know slows the machine already). Is it the hard drive or is it the content on the drive that slows it down?
MacPro 2x3 GHz Dual-Core Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM

Is it the hard drive or is it the content on the drive that slows it down?
Probably both.
Firstly, as hatter suggests, having a drive filled by more than 80% does lead to performance slowdowns for the drive. Additionally he gives good advice in thinking a repartitioning of the drive along with a zero of the entire drive would probably help.
Secondly, check your Energy Saver preferences. If you are sleeping your drives whenever possible try turning that off. It's a common complaint where if a drive is not used within 10 minutes it spins down causing delays, typically 10-15 seconds, when you do want to access the drive.

Slow SATA = distorted audio?

Why are my SATA drives so slow? Is there a way to speed them up? What gives?
I’ve got them connected to the SATA ports on the MOBO. No raid other than the drivers I had to load so the board would see the drives. Standard C, D, E, F (2 partitions per drive) configuration. 2 IDE CD-Roms (pri/sec masters) as G & H.
I tried running a recommended prog called HD Tach & if I’m reading this right, it says my drives are slower that your standard IDE drive.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach
I’m getting distorted audio and the only thing I can see out of place is the suspected slow SATA communication. I’m going to start over with only IDE drives to see if I’m right (although I do dread my two 250 GB sata drives becoming paperweights…)
I have loaded the most recent chipset drivers, tweaked my bios to the best of my knowledge, uninstalled & reinstalled my card in each PCI slot and am going nuts here.
Got any knowledge to throw my way?

Since reading up on MaxBlast 4 and Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler I got to thinking my problem may be related to data loss so I’ve decided to start over from scratch. I’ve also been paying extra close attention to detail during this install. I changed boot from Other to SCSI in BIOS. Also I noticed a missing mscoree.dll, replaced it and am looking into possibly loading current .net framework (not sure of importance or preferred method yet). I’m still debating loading SP4 but most likely will (I’m currently holding off laoding any updates). There was some reason for me reverting back to SP3. SP4 did something negative to my previous DAW but I can’t remember what it was (oh well, better remind myself). My system already seems to be running smoother and I got something to install that wouldn’t install before (probably due to the missing mscoree.dll file I’m currently unfamiliar with). I find it strange it never gave me an error before, yet adversely affected my machine. Gotta love beta progs (especially when they are sold to you as a completed prog) :-/ . Luckily I am aware this one IS a beta though. I’ll have to inform the creators of this finding.
I always select the ‘DMA if available’ options on the IDE channels. I just wasn’t sure if you were talking about some other location for changing this. I’m not yet very educated when is comes to SATA and integrated SATA controllers.
As for running Maxtor’s test prog:
-“The PowerMax utility is effective on all ATA (IDE) hard drives with a capacity greater than or equal to 500 MB.” My drives are each SATA 250 GB.
-and-
-“PowerMax v 4.21 will not detect ATA or SATA hard disks connected to embedded or add in RAID controllers, NVIDIA Force 4, VIA KT 600 and KT800 chipsets. If the hard disk is connected to an unsupported controller, it will have to be moved to an alternate system, or controller for diagnosis.” I have no alternate system or desire to spend more money.
Upon further investigation, the readings on HD Tach are apparently correct and reasonably good. This is not a common activity for me so I have more to learn…
As I said before, SP4 will most likely get loaded soon. I always stay current with DirectX.
I always try to keep my IRQ conflicts under control.
I installed the current VIA HyperionPro Driver Package Version - 5.04A from viaarena.com.
I am even trying something new with my virtual memory, which should have sweet results.
I’ll post more later when I have everything re-installed and witness my results.
Keep the suggestions coming & thanks to all so far.

Slow SATA Drives

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for