SATA II's true speed?

[techiemon]

This wasn't really a test, it was something I needed to do, but am disappointed to find out just how slow transfering files can be even with the new SATA II proposed 3GB/s.

It took 20 minutes to transfer 10GB from one drive to another.. Is this normal? Both drives are exactely the same... Seagate 320GB SATA II 16mb

[Bios24]

Well....10,000mb at 20 minutes would be 8.33MBps, which is painfully slow for a hard drive. This wasn't over a network, was it? Same computer, disk-to-disk? 10gb should take 3 minutes to copy, tops.

[techiemon]

Nope, that was on the same brand new PC drive to drive. Same computer, just different drives, but the same brand of drive, etc... I don't get it...

[smokie mcpott]

there wasnt a USB involved in there any where was there?

[techiemon]

Nope, it is all connected internally via SATA controllers. I don't know if it matters or not but the two drives are in 5 and 6 instead of 1 and 2.

I think you asked that as you saw my other thread in this forum, I do have another external drive that is USB connected and it is extremely slow, a USB pen is much quicker.

[Bios24]

Have you install all the motherboard drivers? How about running a program like HDTach to test drive performance? What 'mode' are you in if you look in device viewer? (Should be SATA or etc, shouldn't be PIO)

[techiemon]

Yes, all the drivers have been installed, that is what is so strange... I will download HDTach and post the results here tomorrow for all to review and give me advice.

[voodoomelon]

Well this also depends on what files you were transfering. If it was one 10GB video file, then it would be a lot quicker than transfering thousands of 1MB jpeg files.

As a matter of comparison, I recently transfered 80GB of 700MB AVIs from my 2x 250GB WD SATAll drives in RAID 0 (although connected to SATA l controllers) to another internal 320GB WD drive and got on average 81MB a second.

[Richie13]

Techiemon,

I don't mean to highjack your thread, but I was wondering about a similar question as well about the actual read/write speed of this new WD Raptor 150gb hard drive I put in my new rig. BIOS24, thank you for mentioning the HDTach utility, it was just what I needed and have been searching for.

Generally, unless you are using SCSI, the stats for the SATA Raptor drive I'm using should be about as good as it gets. Even though it's only SATA1, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make much difference, or any difference at all, if it had been a SATA2 drive. The first pic is of my older computer with WinXP Pro and a Maxtor 7,200rpm drive. The second pic is of my new computer, which is in my sig, using all hand picked components. Quite a difference.


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/Trek13/hdtachXP.jpg



http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/Trek13/hdtachVista.jpg

[Joeteck]

Is Ultra DMA turned on in BIOS? Not sure if this applies to SATA. But its worth a check.

[jiggamanjb]

This wasn't really a test, it was something I needed to do, but am disappointed to find out just how slow transfering files can be even with the new SATA II proposed 3GB/s.

It took 20 minutes to transfer 10GB from one drive to another.. Is this normal? Both drives are exactely the same... Seagate 320GB SATA II 16mb

Just to clear up something, your HD won't ever hit 3 GB/s. That is only how much the SATA interface can handle, not how much the drive is going to put out. You drives will only do about 65 MB/s

[Murdochs_mad]

Well this also depends on what files you were transfering. If it was one 10GB video file, then it would be a lot quicker than transfering thousands of 1MB jpeg files.

Seconded, I recently (stupidly) decided to move my rom collection to a different drive, 70gb of v.small files, 10k to several megs in size, took a long time:(

[Rav]

Make sure in the BIOS the drive controller is set for AHCI mode, or Enhanced mode depending on your BIOS (it's AHCI mode on P5B). If it is in any kind of IDE/Compatilibity mode, performance may be reduced. Also make sure you removed the jumper from the drive so it is in SATAII mode. I installed a new Seagate 320GB and the BIOS was set for the wrong mode, got about the same 8-10MB/s. You should get 60 or so sustained on contiguous data and maybe 80-90 bursts.

[techiemon]

I moved abotu 50-70, with each file ranging from 70k to 200k each.

Well this also depends on what files you were transfering. If it was one 10GB video file, then it would be a lot quicker than transfering thousands of 1MB jpeg files.

As a matter of comparison, I recently transfered 80GB of 700MB AVIs from my 2x 250GB WD SATAll drives in RAID 0 (although connected to SATA l controllers) to another internal 320GB WD drive and got on average 81MB a second.

[Captain Helghas]

70 * 200k /= 10GB

?

[techiemon]

Oops, that should be MB not K, big difference isn't it?! ha ha ha

I just counted and there were roughtly 95 files, which means the average size of each file was aroudn 106MB.

[MRD]

That's why the whole SATA thing is silly. ATA133 PATA is more than fast enough to handle peak transfer ability rates of any drive out there that I know of. Then they go and make SATA which is faster, and SATA2 which is yet faster... so what? What good is it if the interface can move data faster if the hard drive cannot pull it off the platter any faster?

[meionm]

That's why the whole SATA thing is silly. ATA133 PATA is more than fast enough to handle peak transfer ability rates of any drive out there that I know of. Then they go and make SATA which is faster, and SATA2 which is yet faster... so what? What good is it if the interface can move data faster if the hard drive cannot pull it off the platter any faster?
And people wonder why isn't raptor coming with sata II interface.

[meionm]

Techiemon,

I don't mean to highjack your thread, but I was wondering about a similar question as well about the actual read/write speed of this new WD Raptor 150gb hard drive I put in my new rig. BIOS24, thank you for mentioning the HDTach utility, it was just what I needed and have been searching for.

Generally, unless you are using SCSI, the stats for the SATA Raptor drive I'm using should be about as good as it gets. Even though it's only SATA1, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make much difference, or any difference at all, if it had been a SATA2 drive. The first pic is of my older computer with WinXP Pro and a Maxtor 7,200rpm drive. The second pic is of my new computer, which is in my sig, using all hand picked components. Quite a difference.


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/Trek13/hdtachXP.jpg



http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/Trek13/hdtachVista.jpg

There is something wrong with that maxtor hard drive. Either the setup is bad or that test shown results bad. 25mb/s is slower than notebook HD.

[techiemon]

So then basically what you are saying is that 20 minutes for 10GB is normal?!?!?! Hmmmm

[meionm]

So then basically what you are saying is that 20 minutes for 10GB is normal?!?!?! Hmmmm
That's slow. Current drives should run much faster.

[tuskenraider]

I didn't time it exactly, but it took about 3-4 minutes to move a 11.7GB worth of movie clips(10-200MB, 191 files)from my Seagate .8 drive to my RAIDed Raptors. These files were defragmented though, but, 20min. seems off.

[techiemon]

Please see my three drives as attached.

Drive one is my primary O/S drive.
Drive two is a backup drive, - no raid set up.
Drive three is an external drive, same Seagate 320GB SATAII 16mb, set up on a USB connection.

Let me know what you think, I personally feel the results are not that great.

[tuskenraider]

Drive 3 has a major problem. The other two are benching right on for the drive. If drive 3 is run by the same controller as the other two, I'd swap ports with another drive and see if the issue follows the drive or stays on the port.

[techiemon]

Drive three is an external drive on a USB connection though... I guess I could take it out of the box, attach it to one of the SATA contollers inside the machine and then do another test and see what happens... I am disappointed that the USB connection is sooooo slow... I expected it to be slower, but, not like this.

Ok, well I am glad the first two are ok, but it still doesn't answer my question then of why it took 20 minutes to transfer 10GB.... Is this normal?

[Hipcrostino]

Its a USB connection..... It should be slow.

is the usb drive usb 2.0 interface?

anyway back on subject, what was your computer doing at the time? That might have had an impact, but in my experiance, fast drives have never been fast. Thats why i never bothered with raptors. I went from a pata drive to a SATAII drive and havn't noticed any differance at all. Mind you im not running raid.

[techiemon]

Yes it had better be 2.0, it's a new machine and the CD that came with the external box does nothing, so it had better be 2.0.

My computer was running some folding stuff I think, I need to try the transfer again with everything shut off and see if there is any increase in speed.

I am not running RAID either and would be curious for those who are running RAID if they have noticed any difference with the SATA II drives? Is it fast or is it exceedingly slow?

[tuskenraider]

I am not running RAID either and would be curious for those who are running RAID if they have noticed any difference with the SATA II drives? I promise you , SATA1.5 or SATA3.0, the drive is gonna move the data at the same speed.

[techiemon]

That bites.

[Enablingwolf]

I promise you , SATA1.5 or SATA3.0, the drive is gonna move the data at the same speed.
No matter the interface. I will only go as fast as the platters will spin and the hardware telling it what to do. The Raptors edge out a little bit in this respect. Not a whole lot, but some. This is why RAID drives transfer much faster. You have two sets of I/O doing a job. Only if they are on thier own channel.

SATAs real edge over IDE. There is no Master/Slave relationship. So the firmware can be made to only regard it as its own unit, not a shared channel. (ATA controllers are not the most efficient things) In turn this is why SCSI is much much better then consumer hardware. The 15k drives are made for large file transfers and multiple I/O requests.. Even though.. They are still limted in how fast they can move data.

Even though the drives are the same inside. You just have the benifit of faster platters(even the 10k platters). The controller handles each drive as individules(in the case of SCSI). You get the real benifit of each drive bieng able to proccess data on its own. In turn faster movement of data. The drawback of SCSI, you have to tell it when to end the chain(teminator). Since it is always looking for the end of the array. Early burners had to be detected as SCSI since they had to operate on thier own as independent drives. Otherwise the data drive would hog its I/O. It is also why ATA RAID is detected as SCSI. It helps with the system not hogging the drives I/O.

Hence for consumers. RAID0(and higher striping options), is a good thing on large transfers. You have the benifit in having the multiple drives to access. Not like SCSI, but you do get an edge.

If a drive is 7200RPM, it can only move data in or out so fast. It is partialy why we are seeing larger cache drives. It helps buffer the data for the I/O and makes some things faster. For a hard transfer. Your still limited by the rotational speed of the platters. The hardware is the same on the inside of the casing. It is just platter speed, firmware and interface that makes a drive different. Minus some little tweaks here and there. Basically they are all the same priciple inside. Don't matter if it id PATA/SATA or SCSI.

The larger cache SATA drives do very well in loading up data into the buffer and making the drives react faster(good controllers and firmware excel here). Not for anything larger then will fit in the cache.

[Disclaimer: I am going on memory. If I missed a point or got it wrong. A correction is always accepted:D]

[Hipcrostino]

just ran my drive on HD Tach. Used the quick option.

Average read is 55mb/s which is ok. cpu% is nill and 18.2 random access, but the burst speed seems huge compared to what i saw here.

Did you guys use 32mb test (not the 8mb) and would that make a differance?

I don't have time to do the 32mb test right now, so i'll do it later. Anyway here is my result.

Drive is a single 160gb SATAII.

[techiemon]

I used the 32mb option for my tests.

I am a little disappointed to find out that my external drive, drive 3, is actually an IDE drive. Just to clarify, I usually put my own systems together except for the board and the CPU so that if something happens it them the sales people have to replace it, I buy the components separately. This time, however, because I bought everything together it was easier for me to just let them put everything together, including the external drive and box, and then I went to pick it up an hour later, this way they also had time to test the machine before I took it home. I think this will be the last time I trust them.

So with that said, I assume that my benchmark tests are actually ok being it is an IDE drive?

Originally when I spoke to the sales guy he said that he would give me a SATA II drive and through the hardware box it would transfer things through to IDE via a USB connection. Now, however, I am wondering if such a setup even exists? Is there only one type of external drive that I can use on all computers with or without SATA? Obviously I want to be able to use this external drive on virtually all machines, at least those with a USB connection, not many pc's have an external SATA slot.

[Richie13]

Inot many pc's have an external SATA slot.


Techiemon,

That was one of numerous reasons I opted for the Abit AW9D-Max mobo. This one does have a port on the back of the computer for an e-SATA hard drive. Personally, I think for the computer you have and it's setup, your transfer rates are pretty much were they should be.

I also think the problem is how this SATA interface was billed to the public. I actually thought you could transfer files at 3gb/s too. It wasn't until a few weeks back while I was researching components for a new computer build for myself that I realized the reality of SATA and 3gb/s really means in the real world something like 62mb/s, which is similar to the old interface.

Personally, I would still only purchase SATA drives if only for the new cabling. It's much neater and helps stream line internal cooling for my case without all those darn IDE ribbon cables.

Richie

[Richie13]

Hipcrostino,

I get the same average read using either the quick test or the 32mb test. However, there is a slight difference if you have "Enable advance performance" checked in your hard drive policies checked. This should only be checked if you have a UPS connected to your computer.

When this is UN-checked, the graph has wild dips in it and the average read speed drops about 1mb. This is very little, but again, when checked, the graph is much smoother. Since I do have a UPS connected to my computer, I use the "enable advanced performance" for my hard drive. If you have Vista, as I do, and you don't know how to enable it, let me know. If you have WinXP, I'd have to look to see if XP has that cabability.

Richie

[techiemon]

Richie13, I have a slot on the back of my motherboard for a SATA drive, however, the problem is must computers do not, which means that if my wife wants to take it to work with her for something it won't help because her computer doesn't have the slot. This is why I wanted a USB type connection, as nowadays all PC's have at least one.

Where is the HDD policies you mentioned? Where can I find it? I deffinately want to enable it.

I do not have Vista, have no plans to get it until at least SP1. I am using Win XP, let me know if you can figure out where it is.

So I am assuming no setup exisits with an External USB SATA drive?

Thanks.

[Enablingwolf]

In XP, it is 'Optimize for Removal' or 'Optimize for Performance'. It's in the drives properties and Policies. The text in the dialog explains what each does. The otpimize for removal gets rid of the safe to remove icon. The drawback it drops the drives write cache. Which is the drives cache, no cache, no speedy bursts, (no sence in having a large cache drive then).

USB storage drives are best left on the 'Optimize for Removal' option. Since they do not rely on the cache, they can be unplugged easily without much worry. Unless your in the middle of a write. Or your using the drive as a primary of some sort. No reason to have the cache when doing plug in really fast for storage. Long term and your not going to unplug it. Leave it set to the performance option. Unless the safe to remove icon bugs you.

To get there, just right click the drive. Properties | Hardware | Properties | Policies

or


Device manager | (right click desired drive) Properties | Policies

[jiggamanjb]

Richie13, I have a slot on the back of my motherboard for a SATA drive, however, the problem is must computers do not, which means that if my wife wants to take it to work with her for something it won't help because her computer doesn't have the slot. This is why I wanted a USB type connection, as nowadays all PC's have at least one.

Where is the HDD policies you mentioned? Where can I find it? I deffinately want to enable it.

I do not have Vista, have no plans to get it until at least SP1. I am using Win XP, let me know if you can figure out where it is.

So I am assuming no setup exisits with an External USB SATA drive?

Thanks.

The only way you are going to get the performance you are looking for is to use that e-SATA slot.

Your external drive is running at the max that USB can handle. There is nothing wrong with it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I am a little disappointed to find out that my external drive, drive 3, is actually an IDE drive. Just to clarify, I usually put my own systems together except for the board and the CPU so that if something happens it them the sales people have to replace it, I buy the components separately. This time, however, because I bought everything together it was easier for me to just let them put everything together, including the external drive and box, and then I went to pick it up an hour later, this way they also had time to test the machine before I took it home. I think this will be the last time I trust them.

I wouldn't blame them for anything till you open up the enclosure and look for yourself.

It doesn't matter if your drive was IDE or SATA, it's slowed down by the USB.

The drive is 100% fine, USB can only do ~25MB/s

I would find a box that has USB and an e-SATA port on it. Then you will have the performance of the e-SATA at home, but lose it whenever you use the USB. This one has both:
http://www.xpcgear.com/jt35eubk.html

[Richie13]

Hi Techiemon,

EnablingWolf makes a great point and please consider it.

For experimenting purposes, you can still try this for yourself since you have the HDTach utility to see exactly what works best for you.

To enable the write cache performace on XP, do the following:


Start - my computer - Rt click primary c: - click properties -click hardware - left click on hard drive - go into policies - Enable write cache.

It's possible it's checked already or maybe not. You should use HDTach with it checked and unchecked and see the difference it makes. On my other computer, which is WinXP Pro, the difference was 20.8mb/s unchecked, and went up to 25.1 with write caching enabled.

[techiemon]

Thanks all.

For the external drive I already know about that. It was set up for "Optimize for Removal by defalt, this is what I would prefer anyway as I will be unplugging it alot.

For the internal drives, I have checked and indeed the box for "Enable write caching on the disk" is already checked.

I may take the suggestion of jiggamanjb and return the IDE and buy a SATA with case, at least one direction it will be faster. And I have already opened the computer to check everything that I bought to make sure it is correct and set up the way I want it, they actually did a decent job, the same way I would have.

[jiggamanjb]

I may take the suggestion of jiggamanjb and return the IDE and buy a SATA with case, at least one direction it will be faster. And I have already opened the computer to check everything that I bought to make sure it is correct and set up the way I want it, they actually did a decent job, the same way I would have.

Here is a nice graph of what SATA can do compared to USB and Firewire. It's about double.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8414/esataspeedchartto0.gif

[techiemon]

There is not a huge difference, but I believe there would be a significant difference when transfering large amounts of data.

[tuskenraider]

Changing to a SATA>USB from a IDE>USB setup is not going to change your transfer speeds, if I'm understanding that is your intention. If it has to do with this eSATA port usage(not too familiar with it), then go for it.

[MRD]

This is a benchmark under linux for a WD 40 GB ATA100 PATA IDE drive.

~ # hdparm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 1292 MB in 2.00 seconds = 645.11 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 106 MB in 3.03 seconds = 34.97 MB/sec

And from bonnie++

~ # bonnie++ -u mrd -d /home/mrd
Using uid:1000, gid:100.
Writing a byte at a time...done
Writing intelligently...done
Rewriting...done
Reading a byte at a time...done
Reading intelligently...done
start 'em...done...done...done...done...done...
Create files in sequential order...done.
Stat files in sequential order...done.
Delete files in sequential order...done.
Create files in random order...done.
Stat files in random order...done.
Delete files in random order...done.
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
2G 211 45 18881 9 10480 3 1725 87 26823 6 90.3 1
Latency 3162ms 613ms 431ms 87219us 328ms 864ms
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1882 82 +++++ +++ 29864 41 1897 78 +++++ +++ 7301 78
Latency 333ms 3209us 98612us 377ms 61856us 87121us
1.93c,1.93c,1,1172610687,2G,,211,45,18881,9,10480, 3,1725,87,26823,6,90.3,1,16,,,,,1882,82,+++++,+++, 29864,41,1897,78,+++++,+++,7301,78,3162ms,613ms,43 1ms,87219us,328ms,864ms,333ms,3209us,98612us,377ms ,61856us,87121us

[chrispycrunch]

This is a benchmark under linux for a WD 40 GB ATA100 PATA IDE drive.

~ # hdparm -tT /dev/hda

/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 1292 MB in 2.00 seconds = 645.11 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 106 MB in 3.03 seconds = 34.97 MB/sec

And from bonnie++

~ # bonnie++ -u mrd -d /home/mrd
Using uid:1000, gid:100.
Writing a byte at a time...done
Writing intelligently...done
Rewriting...done
Reading a byte at a time...done
Reading intelligently...done
start 'em...done...done...done...done...done...
Create files in sequential order...done.
Stat files in sequential order...done.
Delete files in sequential order...done.
Create files in random order...done.
Stat files in random order...done.
Delete files in random order...done.
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
2G 211 45 18881 9 10480 3 1725 87 26823 6 90.3 1
Latency 3162ms 613ms 431ms 87219us 328ms 864ms
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
16 1882 82 +++++ +++ 29864 41 1897 78 +++++ +++ 7301 78
Latency 333ms 3209us 98612us 377ms 61856us 87121us
1.93c,1.93c,1,1172610687,2G,,211,45,18881,9,10480, 3,1725,87,26823,6,90.3,1,16,,,,,1882,82,+++++,+++, 29864,41,1897,78,+++++,+++,7301,78,3162ms,613ms,43 1ms,87219us,328ms,864ms,333ms,3209us,98612us,377ms ,61856us,87121us

I have been experimenting with ubuntu. It appears the R/W speeds are much better in a unix environment. That probably explains why linux is so much faster :)

[Hipcrostino]

that and linux manages resources properly

[voodoomelon]

Here we are, 2x WD 250GB SATA ll drives with 16MB cache in RAID 0 on SATA l controllers. This is was run using Vista Ultimate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/voodoomelon/OCForums/hdtach.jpg

Despite a high random access time, I get a very nice burst speed of 242.7MB/sec with an average read of 101MB/sec.

By contrast, a seriously crappy, 10 year old IBM 10GB IDE ATA33 drive in an external USB 2.0 caddy gets the following:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/voodoomelon/OCForums/hdtach2.jpg

Just to note that the highest speed I get over USB 2.0 between my RAID in my PC and my external 500GB WD MyBook is 33MB/sec.
Pretty much the fastest you can get over USB 2.0.

[Richie13]

Hey Voodoo,

The numbers look great and that burst speed is really up there. You may also want to try another utility called Hard Drive Tune. You can download it from, http://www.hdtune.com/

I think it's also as good as HD Tach, but with a few extra features.

Richie

[techiemon]

WOW voodoomelon, you achieved some high numbers with that WD, but that is with RAID setup, so it appears the drive performs better with RAID.

Part of the reason for the change from IDE/USB to e-SATA/USB is indeed because of the e-sata port on the motherboard, and it is what I was told by the store.

[Hipcrostino]

Just rant the 32mb test. Exactly the same figures, only the burst rate reports 272mb/s. I'm pritty sure its an 8mb cache drive too

[Captain Helghas]

Gents, I hate to burst your burst speed bubble, but burst speed is not a very good yardstick for HDD speed. The random access and sequential read speeds are where it's at.

[Enablingwolf]

Gents, I hate to burst your burst speed bubble, but burst speed is not a very good yardstick for HDD speed. The random access and sequential read speeds are where it's at.
The burst is the cache. It only good for files or things that fit in the cache. The seq. speed is the overall platter on the two egdges speed. It is faster toward the center of the platter. Slower on the outer edge. Access is how fast it can move from the inner to outer edges, while keeping data integrity.

[Captain Helghas]

The burst is the cache. It only good for files or things that fit in the cache.
Right. HDTach measures the burst speed from the Drive controller to the chipset. If you take a look at the Matrix RAID threads you'll see that the burst speed scales with FSB, which shouldn't have anything to do with the HDD's transfer rate.
Random access should be the time taken to find the first bit in a data call.

[Richie13]

There is something wrong with that maxtor hard drive. Either the setup is bad or that test shown results bad. 25mb/s is slower than notebook HD.


Hi Meionm,

The hard drive you are referring to is operating inside an old Dell XPS T500 from 1999. I did upgrade most of the components like the CPU from 500Mhz to 1.2 Ghz and 768mb of ram. I assume for a computer that old, the stats are most likely where they should be. However, the new system in my sig runs rings around it in all aspects when it comes to speed. Thanks for the heads up.

Richie

[techiemon]

Ok folks, I have rerun the benchmark tests, I did not know that the SATA II's capability was not automatically recognized, thanks to mcoleg I have learned that it is a jumper setting to enable the 3GB transfer rate.

Here are the new tests, let me know what you think. For some reason once again my external drive is not being recognized by the e-sata controller.. This is frustrating.. I was working and then it stopped.

Anyway, after comparing the two tests, one with and one without the SATA II enabled, I see the results actually are pretty much the same, they are both right around 65MB/s. I'm kind of disappointed...

[tuskenraider]

Anyway, after comparing the two tests, one with and one without the SATA II enabled, I see the results actually are pretty much the same, they are both right around 65MB/s. I'm kind of disappointed...Like mentioned earlier, it's a spec, not a performance enhancer. Either way, your drives seem to be performing at their best.

[Madwand]

Anyway, after comparing the two tests, one with and one without the SATA II enabled, I see the results actually are pretty much the same, they are both right around 65MB/s. I'm kind of disappointed...

Look at the burst speeds, and you'll see the difference -- it confirms that in one case the interface is SATA 1.5 Gb/s and the other SATA 3.0 Gb/s. That's about the utility of the burst speed test -- to check that you're running the right interface.

The following is my example, it shows a SATA drive and a PATA drive side by side. The PATA drive is a 320 GB 7200.10, and the SATA is an older 300 GB Maxtor. Note that the PATA drive out-performs the SATA drive in transfer speeds. Note further that my PATA results match the OP's SATA 3.0 Gb/s drives for transfer rates, as they should, because they're mechanically the same drive -- excluding the interface.

Morals: (1) Pick the interface that works for you, but don't get too hung up on it -- even PATA is fine for current hard drives. (2) Be happy with the drive -- see how much better its STR is than the not-all-that-old Maxtor DM 10.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/Madwand0/Sata-vs-Pata-Diff-drives.png

[techiemon]

Yes, I know that this program is for testing only. I have noticed the burst speed is higher but the read spead is almost the same. Anyway, this is the best I am going to be able to get out of my drives, and it is better than just a regular SATA, I am sure when I start copying and saving mass amounts of data I will notice some difference.