So I get this new dual 1.4 finally and I go to install an ATA133 hard disk only to discover the fastest interface on the motherboard is ATA100. It seems to work alright anyway, but how much performance would be gained by purchasing a seperate PCI ATA adapter? I got the 2nd drive in an attempt to avoid frame droppage when capturing DV.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ATA133 drive connected to ATA100 interface?
- Thread starter zdank420
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
~25% at max throughput. questionable whether the bus on the Mac can keep up.
i would say, don't worry about it.
i would say, don't worry about it.
I wouldn't worry about it. Its pretty well documented that the hard drive itself is the bottle neck in most systems, not the interface. Most 7200 rpm hard drives cannot fully use ATA66, ATA100 is more than enough at the current time. I;d wait a while and look maybe at serial ATA when that becomes a standard.
Or if you really need the speed grab a 15000/10000rpm SCSI drive as a capture cache of sorts, only needs to be as big as your captures.
SATA has some signifigant advantages, speed is around ATA150, for your purposes it's not what you need, the bottleneck is the drive.
SATA has some signifigant advantages, speed is around ATA150, for your purposes it's not what you need, the bottleneck is the drive.
Re: ATA133 drive connected to ATA100 interface?
O, zilch, nada.
ATA drives peak at about 60MB/sec, and average 35-50MB/sec, and therefore do not utilize even ATA66 to the fullest.
In about 3 years, when the drives catch up to today's busses, get a host card.
In the meantime, real speed comes from SCSI RAID, which can saturate a PCI bus at 215MB/sec.
If you NEED the fastest, get yourself 7-8 Seagate 15k Cheetahs, and run them on a pair of U320 SCSI cards.
Then PCI architecture will be your bottleneck.
O, zilch, nada.
ATA drives peak at about 60MB/sec, and average 35-50MB/sec, and therefore do not utilize even ATA66 to the fullest.
In about 3 years, when the drives catch up to today's busses, get a host card.
In the meantime, real speed comes from SCSI RAID, which can saturate a PCI bus at 215MB/sec.
If you NEED the fastest, get yourself 7-8 Seagate 15k Cheetahs, and run them on a pair of U320 SCSI cards.
Then PCI architecture will be your bottleneck.
I really hope so. Most PC motherboards are shipping with serial ATA built in and the Hard Drive Manufacturers are finially starting to ship serial ATA Drives. I dont think apple will ship serial ATA drives, but i hope they ship serial ATA support.
OK... so no new PCI adapter necessary with my new 7200 RPM ATA 133 drive w/ 8 MB cache... if the drive can't keep up with ATA100 why bother putting an ATA133 interface on it? Also, would it be beneficial to at least use the 2nd integrated ATA controller (ATA66) in this scenario? Or should I just stick with both drives on the ATA100?
p.s.
thx for all the info, believe it or not Apple tech support actually told me they only deal with "software" and had no clue what i was talking about... this after waiting on hold for like 30 minutes...
p.p.s.
this dual 1.4 flies! wooo hoooo i love it... some of you can shove that illusive IBM 970 up your boooooty.
p.s.
thx for all the info, believe it or not Apple tech support actually told me they only deal with "software" and had no clue what i was talking about... this after waiting on hold for like 30 minutes...
p.p.s.
this dual 1.4 flies! wooo hoooo i love it... some of you can shove that illusive IBM 970 up your boooooty.
with just 2 drives, hook each one up to the separate bus. you'll get more performance. id stick the fastest drive on the ata 100 though.
I have a ATA-133 card in my computer with a 7200 ATA-133 80GB drive connected to it. It has always felt faster. I am a graphics guy so I am always copying 100's of megs when designs are finished. Probably just an illusion if you guys are right . . .
Just my 2 cents,
David
Just my 2 cents,
David
Nispy i meant striped...my bad. I prefer RAID5 myself but obviously this a specific purpose. For top end DV stuff, yea i agree entirely, i've worked selling US$100,000+ DV systems before, it's fun hardware to work with =)
But for most people's needs, even most small places doing stuff like editing wedding vids, it's well over the top. The SCSI storage only needs to be as big as your capture.
But for most people's needs, even most small places doing stuff like editing wedding vids, it's well over the top. The SCSI storage only needs to be as big as your capture.