Cannot be a software issue, because I can get the SATAIII drive to work after a while in Snow Leopard.
I'm leaning towards a combination of things:
- the cable, some are affected more than others
- the EFI not supporting the drive fully
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.
Fix for 2011 17-Inch MacBook Pro SATA Issues Found
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cannot be a software issue, because I can get the SATAIII drive to work after a while in Snow Leopard.
I'm leaning towards a combination of things:
- the cable, some are affected more than others
- the EFI not supporting the drive fully
Check this thread out - https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/885441/
And this in the comments - http://blog.macsales.com/9754-owc-offers-fix-for-2011-17-mbp-sata-problems
And this in the comments - http://blog.macsales.com/9754-owc-offers-fix-for-2011-17-mbp-sata-problems
I guarantee this is correct, except it is not a firmware flaw but an OS X flaw - my post below explains why I've had trouble-free SATA3 for four solid days now, whereas prior I could not last a mere minute without having beachballs:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12616473/
I've got a 15" MacBook Pro arriving, do they also have an SATA3 connection too? It will be interesting to see when 10.6.8 is released and what will be included with it given that there has been rumours that it merges the 'mainline' with the special 2011 branches together into a single combo update.
Does it also improve the performance of standard rotating hard disks as well? I'm getting the MacBook Pro 15" with the 750GB hard disk so I am curious whether there has been a noticeable improvement.
I just had a look at the SATA3 information over at wikipedia and it appears that you're correct in that SATA3 introduced some new technology that Apple needed to support/address such as Isochronous Native Command Queuing (NCQ) which probably improves 'teh snappier'. Maybe they were hoping that Snow Leopard would get things 'working' on the newer 2011 MacBooks Pro but the real enhancements were going to be left for Lion :/
Oh well, good to hear that these issues have been resolved because I know for me I'll probably wait a few months after the release before taking the plunge.
I know there are SATA III hard drives, but I don't think they are available in laptop (2.5 inch) size.
Not all. The early batches didn't. When I bought mine about a month ago the switch was in effect. (I'm glad I wasn't an early adopter).
Really? And where are you getting this information from? I'm an engineer and Apple Tech (amongst many other things) and NO WHERE in Apple's technical notes with regards to build, I/O, etc. do they mention using the newer SATA III spec.
IF Apple was going to update a specific hardware related interface, and especially in this case, upgrade an existing consumer technology (sata II to III), they would highlight as part of a product feature; i.e. Thunderbolt from '11 models vs. Mini-Display Port from all other models since '09.
If somehow you forum trollers have information I don't great-good for you BUT please remember that Apple ships products and tests them with regards to what they know works and NOT every aftermarket, 3rd party upgrade. And if the battery status LED cable is actually causing an interference issue then it's not Apple's problem. Go find an SSD that doesn't cause this issue or order Apple's 256 or 512GB SSD option since that CLEARLY has no problems.
And now for the final point which makes all of this moot: write speeds to SSD's come no where close to actualizing a SATA III throughput. You're talking about 750 megabytes (not megabits) per second write to an SSD to utilize SATA III. Show me an MLC SSD that could actually do this??? And if you think I forgot about Read speads-SATA II more than maximizes read throughput from and internal SSD HD on Apple's architecture.
I can't believe people post on here things like, "I'm marching in to Apple to have my SATA cable replaced.." and "how could engineering miss something like this.." etc. REALLY PEOPLE??
I believe you are incorrect. All the 2011 MBPs have a SATA III capable connection in the HDD drive bay. From forum posts here it appears later builds of the 2011 show a SATA III capable connection in the optical bay also. There are many threads on this. I think you are confusing the optical bay with the HDD bay connection.
Hmm... you seem a little upset over this.
I said nothing about cables or "official" support of SATA III from Apple on the 2011 MBP, so your screed is misdirected. The fact is, and there are dozens of reports and screenshots to prove it, you can put a SATA III drive in the HDD bay of a 2011 MBP and it connects at SATA III speed. Now whether Apple intended this or will support it is I agree another matter altogether.
Hmm... you seem a little upset over this.
I said nothing about cables or "official" support of SATA III from Apple on the 2011 MBP, so your screed is misdirected. The fact is, and there are dozens of reports and screenshots to prove it, you can put a SATA III drive in the HDD bay of a 2011 MBP and it connects at SATA III speed. Now whether Apple intended this or will support it is I agree another matter altogether.
I've looked at the block diagram for the new MBP '11 architecture and there is support for SATA III - specifically stated as "SATA III Capable" - however that just means the components can handle the data throughput and traffic, NOT that you should just be able to put in any SATA III you feel like and expect it to work.
It's a joke that OWC claims their fix is to shield the Apple part of the equation but not take a look at their own in-house designed SSD upgrades. How is this Apple's fault/issue/problem? That in no way rules out future OS build and firmware updates to fully support the SATA III spec.
Samsung makes most of Apple's SSD upgrades. Buy a SATA III SSD from them aftermarket, then someone report if it works. Go back and re-read my statement about read/write speeds then re-evaluate why you think you need a SATA III HD again? (not directed at anyone specifically but a question in general)
I am a little upset because forums and the internet in general propagate way too much mis-information regarding Apple products which create a complete false sense of expectation. 12 people on 12 different forums said they saw BigFoot 12 days ago so that MUST mean it's a government conspiracy. Get my point? You can find anything you want on an Apple forum somewhere on the internet stating "it should be so because this person said so..." but it doesn't mean it's even close to being true. I spend most of my day consulting people who read too much crap on forums then think their Macbook Pro should turn water into wine. It's ridiculous.
What we should be discussing is what brands of SATA III HD's work, what doesn't? Is it only SSD's? Test a Samsung with developer builds of 10.6.8 and 10.7 preview 3 then talk about what happens.
What I think is funny about the whole SATA III debate, it reminds me of the USB3 vs USB2 debates that happen. I've yet to see an external USB2 device transfer faster than 10-15MB per second (thus making USB3 pointless given you'll never flood the connection) thus never reaching the theoretical 60MBps (480Mbps). I've yet to see an internal hard disk hooked up to an SATA ever flooding the acclaimed bandwidth provided given by the controller given there are a whole host of other factors to take into consideration.
For me I'm pretty damn happy with the current generation of iMac and MacBook Pro on offer when compared to what Dell offer. Btw, I compare it to Dell because I refuse to purchase my stuff in a shop because 9/10 they never have it in stock hence I'm better off just ordering it online (HP, Toshiba, etc. don't have online shops where I live).
Whoops I thought someone asked me about the 2011 MBPs coming with dual 6GB ports. I'm mixing my forum posts.
Not all do, but I'm glad I got lucky.
be calm
1) That same drives work on that same hardware under bootkamped windows
2) meet modern SSD speed:
Transfer Size 256MB, test area start
Iteration 1: writing…476MB/sec, reading…520MB/sec
Iteration 2: writing…482MB/sec, reading…515MB/sec
Iteration 3: writing…483MB/sec, reading…521MB/sec
Iteration 4: writing…480MB/sec, reading…516MB/sec
Iteration 5: writing…482MB/sec, reading…521MB/sec
and even 2009 Crucial C300 gives 360 on sata3 and 250-270 on sata2
3) HDD IS DEFINITELY user replaceable - it is clearly stated. And nowhere stated that I can't use modern SSDs in 2011 mbp. NOWHERE. Furthermore, C300 from 2009 also doesn't work in 2011 mbp - and same drive works in previous model
4) go read this for example: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12616473/
5) I spent around 5 grand on setup - so _I_ am upset. For my new superfast working horse. And it just DOES NOT WORK AT ALL
6) where are at least software fallback to sata2 mode? as a little fast dirty fix for us, users, who are buying most powerful (read expensive) hardware? As a bit of respect?
7) There are NO SATA3 sams drives. And, BTW, there are also a "Apple" Hitachi SSD. And, furthermore, where exactly Apple stated that "Apple SSD" is Samsung and I should use Samsung?
So check your facts before go upset.
Last edited:
I take a look at IOStorageProtocolCharacteristics.h from IOStorageFamily-116.1.41, specifically at this part:
...
@discussion This key defines the value of xxx Gigabit for the key
kIOPropertyPortSpeedKey. If the speed of the port is xxx Gigabits
per second and is not automatically determined (i.e. the user
configured the port to be exactly this speed), this key should be used.
...
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed1GigabitKey "1 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed1_5GigabitKey "1.5 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed2GigabitKey "2 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed3GigabitKey "3 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed4GigabitKey "4 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed6GigabitKey "6 Gigabit"
etc etc
...
Example:
<pre>
@textblock
<dict>
<key>Controller Characteristics</key>
<dict>
<key>Port Speed</key>
<string>4 Gigabit</string>
</dict>
</dict>
@/textblock
</pre>
and I think there is a way to fallback link speed to 4 gbps from 6 just with plist correction in IOStorageFamily.kext - that should give a +33% speed over 3 gbps sata2 and probably resolve stability problems - until Apple do something
...
@discussion This key defines the value of xxx Gigabit for the key
kIOPropertyPortSpeedKey. If the speed of the port is xxx Gigabits
per second and is not automatically determined (i.e. the user
configured the port to be exactly this speed), this key should be used.
...
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed1GigabitKey "1 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed1_5GigabitKey "1.5 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed2GigabitKey "2 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed3GigabitKey "3 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed4GigabitKey "4 Gigabit"
#define kIOPropertyPortSpeed6GigabitKey "6 Gigabit"
etc etc
...
Example:
<pre>
@textblock
<dict>
<key>Controller Characteristics</key>
<dict>
<key>Port Speed</key>
<string>4 Gigabit</string>
</dict>
</dict>
@/textblock
</pre>
and I think there is a way to fallback link speed to 4 gbps from 6 just with plist correction in IOStorageFamily.kext - that should give a +33% speed over 3 gbps sata2 and probably resolve stability problems - until Apple do something
Mate since you are so toe the line Apple philosophy why bother attempting to contribute here? Apple has been selling us overpriced and under performing, hard drives, ram etc for years. Any decent Mac Tech doesn't supply these for his clients. The Intel chipset was ALWAYS SATA3 ... Apple could have tested for SATA 3 but didn't why? Because they want to sell slow old SSD's that they pay f all for to people for mega bucks. Additionally they build in less tolerance for 3rd party ram than the JEDEC spec calls for. In essence Apple blow in many regards & and trying to kill the reseller and consultant market and take as much business for themselves direct.
Oh and obviously you haven't tested SATA3 drives yet that over saturate a SATA2 bus .... it's obvious from the real world published results that this is a reality. Are you in denial here? You don't seem very technical or "Think different" outside of the box!
Last edited:
