This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the
right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction.

I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and
it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they
all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s).

Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other
PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and
writing.

I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different
cable, but it's still the same.

In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller"
but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but
on the next startup it was installed again.

What can I do?
Thank you.

GuilleFC wrote:
> This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the
> right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction.
>
> I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and
> it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they
> all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s).
>
> Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other
> PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and
> writing.
>
> I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different
> cable, but it's still the same.
>
> In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller"
> but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but
> on the next startup it was installed again.
>
> What can I do?
> Thank you.

I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking
complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're
copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a
PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should
be).

Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there.


--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/

Maybe the disk write cache is turned off. I have seen this causing slow write with SCSI drives. Since SATA emulates SCSI, and some OSs e.g. WinXP can turn off disk write cache against your wished perhaps this is your problem. Also check the system BIOS and SATA BIOS, if it is displayed, for any cache settings.

GuilleFC wrote:
>
> This is my first post here so please forgive me if this is not the
> right place for my question and please lead me to the right direction.
>
> I've installed a Serial ATA disk (Maxtor 7Y250M0) in my computer and
> it goes too slow when writing. I've tried several programs and they
> all give about 4-5 MB/sec write. Reading it's OK (35-50 MB/s).
>
> Mobo is an MSI KT6V with Athlon XP 1700+ and 512 RAM. I have two other
> PATA disks (ATA-100) whose numbers are OK for both reading and
> writing.
>
> I've updated BIOS and SATA drivers, swapped SATA port, tried different
> cable, but it's still the same.
>
> In my Device Manager there's an item "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller"
> but I have no RAID (just one SATA drive). I tried to uninstall it but
> on the next startup it was installed again.
>
> What can I do?
> Thank you.

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

> I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking
> complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're
> copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a
> PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should
> be).

I don't think it has to do with having both PATA and SATA drives in
the same system. While copying files is slow too, I realized that the
SATA disk was slow when I installed Pinnacle Studio and ran the check
for disk speed that it does before capturing from camcorder. I don't
know what it does to do the test, but I would guess that it's just to
create and fill a file of a given size and watch how long it took.

Besides, I unplugged the PATA disks and booted with only the SATA
disk, with the same result.

> Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there.

I won't do it again, now that I know that Windows needs it, but I
don't seem to undesrtand what for.

Thank you Miss.

> Maybe the disk write cache is turned off. I have seen this causing slow write with SCSI drives. Since SATA emulates SCSI, and some OSs e.g. WinXP can turn off disk write cache against your wished perhaps this is your problem. Also check the system BIOS and SATA BIOS, if it is displayed, for any cache settings.

Maybe you're right, but I can't find any place to check whether it's
turned on or off. I can find it for the other disks, but for the SATA
the option just is not there.

Thank you.

On 13 Mar 2005 13:38:33 -0800, (E-Mail Removed)
(GuilleFC) wrote:

>> I would hazard a guess that - and someone please tell me I'm talking
>> complete bullcrap, it's the only way I'll learn - it's because you're
>> copying from PATA to SATA (I used to experience similar issues when I had a
>> PATA drive in my system - now it's gone the SATA speed is what it should
>> be).
>
>I don't think it has to do with having both PATA and SATA drives in
>the same system.

It's not.


>While copying files is slow too, I realized that the
>SATA disk was slow when I installed Pinnacle Studio and ran the check
>for disk speed that it does before capturing from camcorder. I don't
>know what it does to do the test, but I would guess that it's just to
>create and fill a file of a given size and watch how long it took.
>
>Besides, I unplugged the PATA disks and booted with only the SATA
>disk, with the same result.
>
>> Don't remove the RAID entry in device manager - it's supposed to be there.
>
>I won't do it again, now that I know that Windows needs it, but I
>don't seem to undesrtand what for.
>
>Thank you Miss.


The "RAID" entry is there because it IS a RAID (capable)
controller. There are a number of possible things to try,

- Newer motherboard bios

- Different Via 4in1 driver

- Different RAID driver

- Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try
80-96)

- Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other
card(s) around in PCI slots.

> There are a number of possible things to try,
> - Newer motherboard bios
> - Different Via 4in1 driver
> - Different RAID driver

Do you mean to try drivers for different but similar motherboards? I
don't know if I should do that, it sounds risky.

> - Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try 80-96)
> - Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other
> card(s) around in PCI slots.

IRQ for "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" is 20 and it's not shared.
IRQ's for primary and secondary IDE channels are 15 and 16 and they're
not shared either.

It's not a PCI SATA card, but it's built in the motherboard. Does it
have any relation with PCI?

Thank you Kony.

On 14 Mar 2005 14:00:01 -0800, (E-Mail Removed)
(GuilleFC) wrote:

>> There are a number of possible things to try,
>> - Newer motherboard bios
>> - Different Via 4in1 driver
>> - Different RAID driver
>
>Do you mean to try drivers for different but similar motherboards? I
>don't know if I should do that, it sounds risky.

Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard
manufacturer when there is a newer available from the
chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the
chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but
rather start out a system with the current driver revisions
as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite
old.

Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios
being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware
monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver
is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and
interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually
due to merely being older version).


>
>> - Raising PCI latency in bios (might default to 32, try 80-96)
>> - Checking Device Mgr. for IRQ sharing, moving some other
>> card(s) around in PCI slots.
>
>IRQ for "VIA Serial ATA RAID Controller" is 20 and it's not shared.
>IRQ's for primary and secondary IDE channels are 15 and 16 and they're
>not shared either.
>
>It's not a PCI SATA card, but it's built in the motherboard. Does it
>have any relation with PCI?

No and yes. If it's a separate SATA chip providing the
function its still on the PCI bus, but since modern chipsets
integrated it into the southbridge i'll focus on that for a
moment. Modern chipset integral SATA is not dependant on
PCI bus BUT overall system performance may still be lagging
due to sub-optimal PCI bus, and that lag may effect more
than just PCI devices. If it's southbridge-integral then
there is far lower chance the PCI latency would have an
effect, it may not be accountable for this problem. I had
overlooked that your KT6 based board should have
southbridge-based SATA though I still suggest rasing the PCI
latency if it's at 32 in the bios (was a common default
value).

> Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard
> manufacturer when there is a newer available from the
> chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the
> chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but
> rather start out a system with the current driver revisions
> as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite
> old.
>
> Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios
> being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware
> monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver
> is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and
> interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually
> due to merely being older version).

I had already updated drivers and BIOS with the MSI LiveUpdate
utility, so I thought I should have the latest. Now I visited VIA web
site and found they are the latest indeed.

> No and yes. If it's a separate SATA chip providing the
> function its still on the PCI bus, but since modern chipsets
> integrated it into the southbridge i'll focus on that for a
> moment. Modern chipset integral SATA is not dependant on
> PCI bus BUT overall system performance may still be lagging
> due to sub-optimal PCI bus, and that lag may effect more
> than just PCI devices. If it's southbridge-integral then
> there is far lower chance the PCI latency would have an
> effect, it may not be accountable for this problem. I had
> overlooked that your KT6 based board should have
> southbridge-based SATA though I still suggest rasing the PCI
> latency if it's at 32 in the bios (was a common default
> value).

Raising the value to 96 had no effect (yes, it was 32).

In the BIOS setup, under the SATA Controller (which is Enabled, of
course), I found a setting called "V-Link Data 2X Support", which is
also Enabled. I'm not sure what this is for, or whether it's related
with SATA, but disabling it had no effect either.

Thank you Kony.

On 15 Mar 2005 14:56:55 -0800, (E-Mail Removed)
(GuilleFC) wrote:

>> Nope, I never use the drivers from the motherboard
>> manufacturer when there is a newer available from the
>> chipset manufacturer. That doesn't mean I'd jump at the
>> chance to upgrade a driver every time a new one came out but
>> rather start out a system with the current driver revisions
>> as those offered by motherboard manufacturer may be quite
>> old.
>>
>> Motherboards are pretty much modular... Beyond the bios
>> being specific to the board, and "maybe" the hardware
>> monitoring software to a certain extent, every other driver
>> is based on the chipset manufacturer's driver and
>> interchangeable with it, if not exactly the same (usually
>> due to merely being older version).
>
>I had already updated drivers and BIOS with the MSI LiveUpdate
>utility, so I thought I should have the latest. Now I visited VIA web
>site and found they are the latest indeed.

Sometimes yes it can work out that way, but sometimes no.
At the very best the motherboard manufacturer can hope to
have their website and "live" update thingy updated with new
drivers in a timely fashion, but often they aren't. It all
happens after chipset manufacturer has released that new
driver, which they probably already linked from their own
driver offerings or at least had up on an FTP server
somewhere.


>Raising the value to 96 had no effect (yes, it was 32).

You might not note any difference except at times of high
CPU utilization, like networking while playing audio, adding
a PCI GbE or other controller card or ??? Generally when
I can't tell a difference either way I leave it at 64.

>
>In the BIOS setup, under the SATA Controller (which is Enabled, of
>course), I found a setting called "V-Link Data 2X Support", which is
>also Enabled. I'm not sure what this is for, or whether it's related
>with SATA, but disabling it had no effect either.

Leave it enabled, otherwise the (northbridge to
southbridge?) bus runs slower.