You're seeing the similar messages that I do, the controllers seem to
be recognised as 3Gb/s but the drives are either reporting or being
recognised as 133MB/s
in my case the drives (WDC WD2500KS )are *not* PATA drivers with
on-board SATA bridge chips, how about yours?
Well, I think this is a SATA drive..
WDC WD2000JS-55MHB0
hdparm -I says udma6 is being used.
Testing my old drive, with this new SATA II one shows very similar
performance, near 60MB/s (via hdparm -Tt). Is this unusual? I would
expect some kind of improvement...
What does hdparm -T show? If it shows above 1.5Gb/s then at least your
physical interface is doing the SATA II speed to the drives,
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 2260 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1129.27 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 176 MB in 3.03 seconds = 58.07 MB/sec
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 2228 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1113.55 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 176 MB in 3.00 seconds = 58.60 MB/sec
7200 RPM, 8 MB cache.
It's nice to know my SATA II drive is so much superior :)
so in my case the interface between motherboard and disk electronics
is 37 times the speed of the interface between disk electronics and
disk surface, sata II's 3Gb/s speed is irrelevant, if only I had NCQ
that could make a difference ..
How does NCQ make a difference?
Also, jgarzik's webpage says: "Nvidia has released docs on nforce4 under
NDA".
Do you know if there's work in progress to implement NCQ for that chipset?
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list