UDMA-5 instead of 6; why?

[Navid]

Hello group,

I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
drive).
1 PATA drive with data on it.
No RAID.

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

Thanks,

Navid

 

[Andrew Rossmann]

Hello group,

I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot
drive).
1 PATA drive with data on it.
No RAID.

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

I wouldn't worry about it. I extremely doubt if there would be any speed
or performance difference between ATA100 and ATA133. I don't think ATA133
is an official standard anyways. Different manufacturers have their own
variations.

 

[Tod]

I've never used Serial ATA, but
Could you be reading the wrong drive ?
Parallel ATA is 100 and 133
Is not the current serial speed SATA-150

 

[Eric Gisin]

SATA does not use UDMA. If it really bothers you, take a shotgun to the
mother-F-board.

 

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

SATA does not use UDMA. If it really bothers you, take a shotgun to the
mother-F-board.

Good advice. I would replace it with a board that supported SCSI.

Rita

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hello group,

I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot drive).
1 PATA drive with data on it.
No RAID.

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

This could be a possibility when the drive has a bridge chip and the bridge chip doesn't support UDMA mode 6.

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

Probably not and since SATA is point to point there is no reason for wanting it either.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

SATA does not use UDMA.

Yes, it does on legacy drives converted to SATA.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hello group,

I have an ASUS P4P800 deluxe motherboard.
1 80G Seagate SATA drive with Win XP pro (SP1) on it (it is the boot drive).
1 PATA drive with data on it.
No RAID.

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer
mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

I wouldn't worry about it. I extremely doubt if there would be any speed
or performance difference between ATA100 and ATA133.[/QUOTE]

I don't think ATA133 is an official standard anyways.

Rossmann, get a ****ing clue and read the spec.

Different manufacturers have their own variations.

Nope.

 

[Eric Gisin]

This could be a possibility when the drive has a bridge chip and the bridge

chip doesn't support UDMA mode 6.These utilities examine word 88 of Identify Device, and ATA-7 doesn't define
anything beyond UDMA-6.

 

[Mark M]

Rossmann, get a ****ing clue and read the spec.

Folkert, the poster is perfectly correct in what he says. He says
he does not think ATA133 is an official standard - Of course he
knows what he thinks and he knows what he does not think. He
says he thinks it is not.

http://www.t13.org/docs2004/d1532v1r4a.pdf etc.

When I looked at the specs it was ATA/ATAPI-7 which introduced UDMA
Mode 6 to permit data transfer up to 133 Mbps. At least that is
what T13 think it is called. It is not something called "ATA133".
Not in English, Dutch or Frisian.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Folkert, the poster is perfectly correct in what he says.
Nope.

He says he does not think ATA133 is an official standard -

Uhuh. So why object against ATA133 but not say a word about ATA100?

Of course he knows what he thinks and he knows what he does not think.
He says he thinks it is not.

So?
Extending you stupid wordgame means he actually 'thinks' that ATA100 is
(an official standard).
Better get some more practice before playing wordgames.

http://www.t13.org/docs2004/d1532v1r4a.pdf etc.

When I looked at the specs it was ATA/ATAPI-7 which introduced UDMA
Mode 6 to permit data transfer up to 133 Mbps.

At least that is what T13 think it is called.

Nope, that is what they called it and what everyone else call ATA 133 or
Ultra 133 or UDMA 133 or ..... , depending on who "everyone else" is
or what comes to mind first.

It is not something called "ATA133".

Nor ATA100.

Want to try again?

Not in English, Dutch or

Frisian.

You bookmarked that one post, did you?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

These utilities examine word 88 of Identify Device, and ATA-7 doesn't define
anything beyond UDMA-6.

I propose that you read again what I said.

 

[Mark M]

Nope.

Yes, actaully.

Maybe you should read a post before firing off knee-jerk reactions
or showing us your stream of conscious thought processes. i can
tell you that in your case, hee hee, it is not a pretty sight!
Heh.

Uhuh. So why object against ATA133 but not say a word about
ATA100?


So?
Extending you stupid wordgame means he actually 'thinks' that
ATA100 is (an official standard).
Better get some more practice before playing wordgames.

Awwww. You know I am just playing, don't you? And there I was
hoping to wind you up.

Nope, that is what they called it

I don't think that "ATA133" occurs in their specs.

and what everyone else call
ATA 133 or Ultra 133 or UDMA 133 or ..... , depending on who
"everyone else" is or what comes to mind first.


Nor ATA100.

Want to try again?



You bookmarked that one post, did you?

No need for bookmarks. Last time I was over in your part of the
world Frisian was an official language. Can't see that that has
changed recently.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Yes, actaully.

Maybe you should read a post before firing off knee-jerk reactions
or showing us your stream of conscious thought processes. i can
tell you that in your case, hee hee, it is not a pretty sight!
Heh.

What a moron. Now fully playing the Troll.

Right. Glad we got that sorted.

Awwww. You know I am just playing, don't you?
Troll.

And there I was hoping to wind you up.

MBps actually or rather MB/s.

I don't think that "ATA133" occurs in their specs.

You don't 'think'. Oh yeah, don't I fully agree with that.

Obviously I referred to UDMA mode 6, not "ATA133".

"Maybe you should read a post before ....."

And yes, they actually did mention it by that other kludge name:
"Added e01135r1, UDMA 133 as approved at the February 2002 plenary."

No need for bookmarks. Last time I was over in your part of the
world Frisian was an official language.

Can't see that that has changed recently.

I was referring to a single (1) post where I happened to mention Frisian.
So you didn't remember that one then.
Oh well, there goes my "that proves you are a regular here" that I had in mind.

 

[Mark M]

Right. Glad we got that sorted.

Folkert, are you talking to yourself? It was you who wrote that
comment.

And your reply to what you said reveals what you now think it.

Weird.


-- snip --

I was referring to a single (1) post where I happened to
mention Frisian. So you didn't remember that one then.
Oh well, there goes my "that proves you are a regular here"
that I had in mind.

Guess so.

 

[Rod Speed]

I was referring to a single (1) post where I happened to mention Frisian.
So you didn't remember that one then.

No surprises there. Your puerile shit aint even memorable.

Oh well, there goes my "that proves you
are a regular here" that I had in mind.

More puerile shit.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Folkert, are you talking to yourself?

Well, I would have if you hadn't responded. So, do you always ask
stupid questions? Oops, we already had established that. Sorry.

It was you who wrote that comment.

You don't say. Ever heard of tacit agreement? That's what I obviously
responded too. I don't have to spell it out for you, do I?
Say "I am insanely stupid and inept" and I might. But then, maybe not.

And your reply to what you said reveals what you now think it.

Weird.

Yup, that sentence of yours certainly is.

 

[nuke]

Diagnostics tools like aida32 or SiSoft Sandra report maximum UDMA transfer

mode (for my SATA drive) to be UDMA-6 (ATA-133), but the current active
mode
is reported as UDMA-5 (ATA-100).

Is there anything I can do to get this drive to use ATA-133?

Thanks,

Navid

This is actually correct what is supposed to happen.

SATA *ALWAYS* runs at 1.5gbps, no matter what. (until SATA-II anyway).

By the SATA specification, SATA drives are supposed to appear to be UDMA mode 5
to the system. This is to make old software happy and that everything is
running normally.

So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.

 

[Mark M]

Well, I would have if you hadn't responded. So, do you always
ask stupid questions? Oops, we already had established that.
Sorry.


You don't say. Ever heard of tacit agreement? That's what I
obviously responded too. I don't have to spell it out for you,
do I? Say "I am insanely stupid and inept" and I might. But
then, maybe not.


Yup, that sentence of yours certainly is.

Surreal. *sigh*

You are always good value for money, Forkert! Heh.

But despite my silly joshings with you I have to say that I do find
your less hostile postings useful because you do seem to know about
system storage.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

This is actually correct what is supposed to happen.

SATA *ALWAYS* runs at 1.5gbps, no matter what. (until SATA-II anyway).

By the SATA specification, SATA drives are supposed to appear to be UDMA
mode 5 to the system.

Nonsense. Not a single mention of UDMA mode 5 in the SATA spec.
It wasn't even specified in ATA/ATAPI-5 which is what the spec seems
to be suggesting for 'Standard ATA Emulation'.

This is to make old software happy and that everything is running normally.

'Standard ATA Emulation' is supposed to keep old software happy.
And that won't be standard user software as that can't care less about
the hardware interface. All it cares about is that the API hasn't changed
for your normal run of the mill user calls.

So what you have is indeed correct and is already running at top speed.

Nice try, no cigar.