The Barracuda ATA IV has the fastest internal transfer rate of any of its competitors. This is why it is the highest performance drive in its class in certain applications when used by itself. Evidently, when the drive is used in some RAID 0 environments, it can supply data to the interface faster than the host system can request it. Under some circumstances, such as reading sequential data, this can cause the drive to incur a latency. This means when the host request comes too late -- after the data's initial immediate availability -- the drive must wait for the disc to rotate up to one revolution for the requested data to be available again. Under these circumstances, the drive appears to be slow in performance when actually it is too fast. This is not a new phenomenon. Because Seagate is the leader in new technologies and products, and the increased performance they bring, we sometimes have to wait for the rest of the industry to catch up. When Seagate introduced the Cheetah X15, over one million drives ago, there was a similar issue with a few SCSI RAID controllers. Like the SCSI RAID environment, we anticipate optimized controllers will become available. In the meanwhile, it appears some 2-drive ATA RAID 0s can't keep up with the Barracuda ATA IV. There is no alternate slower firmware available to accommodate the problem.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Barracuda HDD with RAID owners READ HERE
- Thread starter lazerin
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Location
- VARIANTE ASCARI
Old news but still a lot of people dont know about it.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
The screaming you hear is from my bulls*** detector.
If Seagate has the "highest internal transfer rates of any drive maker", then why did the Barracuda IV get spanked like a red head stepchild by the WD BB drives, the Maxtor Diamondmax D740X, and the IBM 120GXP? All of which work fine in a RAID 0 array?
Whatta crock of....
BHD
If Seagate has the "highest internal transfer rates of any drive maker", then why did the Barracuda IV get spanked like a red head stepchild by the WD BB drives, the Maxtor Diamondmax D740X, and the IBM 120GXP? All of which work fine in a RAID 0 array?
Whatta crock of....
BHD
Johnny Knoxville
Disabled
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
BaldHeadedDork said:
yeah that's BS, it actually has the slowest transfer rates of any of its competitors
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Location
- Barcelona, Spain
Fact is, if the microcode is correctly written, no latency will be enforced, because read data will go to the hd buffer in readahead mode, waiting for the host to reclaim it.
To me this is just a justification to a limitation of the drive´s microcode. (not even a defect), which has not been designed/tested in such environments.
Regards
FTC
To me this is just a justification to a limitation of the drive´s microcode. (not even a defect), which has not been designed/tested in such environments.
Regards
FTC
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Sounds like a cop-out, "no we aren't slow, we are just so fast you didn't even see us go by the first time."
Similar threads
