Sata and Data Corruption

[Robert Neville]

My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.

Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.

Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
particular scenarios.

System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
greater
than default)
Large file transfers

Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
this scenario as well.

Thing I have done
- Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
- Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
- System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
- Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
- Read countless messages on the topic
- Nothing seems to work

Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
internal, yet experience data corruption.

These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.

Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?

Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1

Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
in Windows XP
http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html

Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/


OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
- 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
v.42 (3025)

Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller

 

[Arno Wagner]

My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives. [...]
These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
blame the software developers.

I had something like this with firewire under Linux. However I did not
get corruption, but multiple interface timouts and the kernel dropping
the disk because it said it was unusable.

I did not have any problems with the VIA-internal SATA do far.
Data-corruption due to bad bits is very unlikely with SATA.
Have you looked at the specific type of corruption? Is it wrong
bits, missing sectors, whole sectors that are wrong, short writes
or something else?

Arno

 

[ted msn]

My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error"
on an external 200 GB hard drive. The hard drive in question is a
Seagate 200 GB 7200 rpm ATA in a Speeze enclosure 350ufl (firewire).
After running most software utilities (defrag, chkdisk, and
anti-virus) and re-partition some other drives, the error message went
away. I continued my research about the scenario and focused on using
my other two internal 200 GB Western Digital SATA drives.

Shortly thereafter, data corruption became apparent on the SATA drive.
Now, this situation made me FREAK OUT. I have never experience data
corruption in my 15 years using computers. The A7NX8 board has been in
use for over a year without a major problem like data corruption. My
data is highly sensitive and backups are only so useful. Imagine
re-digitize hours of footage. The time spent on this problem does not
allow me to make money and purchase more upgrades.

Upon further research (Links below), the problems relates to these
particular scenarios.

System Memory greater than 512 Meg. (1 gigabyte of RAM is common)
Large NTFS disk volumes. And multiple large volumes. (60-100 gigabyte
hard drives possibly in RAID arrays)
AGP graphics with large AGP resource requirements (AGP aperture
greater
than default)
Large file transfers

Yes, these conditions apply to my setup. In addition, A7NX8 and the
Silicon Image SATA controller 3112 are prone to this scenario. Not
with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
this scenario as well.

Thing I have done
- Flash the A7N8X bios to 1007
- Upgrade the SATA drivers (bios v4.2.27)
- System Cache option is NOT selected for Memory usage.
- Adjusted the SystemPages (generated more problems for me)
- Read countless messages on the topic
- Nothing seems to work

Fortunately, my system boots from an old 60 GB IDE. The data
corruption only applies to the large drives over 137 gigs whether from
Western Digital or Seagate. The Seagate drive could be external or
internal, yet experience data corruption.

These problems seem to be with Windows XP and badly written drivers.
Microsoft shoves blame on the component vendors. The component vendors
blame the software developers. But I plan to hold each vendor
responsible until the problem is resolved to my expectation. I plan on
posting on every forum and newsgroup; so people know the risks
associated with large drive and SATA. Excuse my crossposting, but if
one person avoids this situation then I have served my duty.

Please if you have any insight let me know. First, how do I recovery
data from these drives? Second, how do I prevent data corruption and
transfer large files? Third, how I test to ensure reliability?

Delayed Write Failed on USB 2.0 hard disk
http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.cfm?catid=16&threadid=50469&STARTPAGE=1

Data corruption may occur if the Large System Cache feature is enabled
in Windows XP
http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4217.html

Delayed Write Failed / Error - FINALLY SORTED OUT!
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/22061/


OS - Windows XP Pro SP 1 (Full install) | Processor - Athlon Barton
2600+ | Motherboard - Asus A7N8X 2.0 Deluxe | Bios - 1007Dv2.0-Uber |
Power Supply - Antec 430W True Power | CoolMaster WaveMaster | Memory
- 2x 512 MB DDR PC2700: Crucial and Kingston ValueRam | Hard Drive -
60GB and 30GB Western Digital 7200 rpm, 2 x 200 GB Western Digital
SATA 7200 rpm | Lite-On DVD+-R/RW | Sony CRX220E | Video Card - Matrox
G400 AGP | Sound - Soundblaster Live! Platinum | Modem - Zoom Faxmodem
v.42 (3025)

Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller

Hi
I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
(seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!

As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
send me an email address or I can post them here.

regards
ted

 

[zz]

with standing, some people with ATI 9800 video card have experienced
this scenario as well.

Anytime you mention ATI9800 and hard drives, the +12 volt power supply
comes to mind

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Try memory/IO test http://home.earthlink.net/~alegr/download/memtest.htm

Run it under Windows with I/O test enabled. See if you can find conditions
when it fails or succeeds.

Are you sure the enclosure supports disks>137 GB, though?

 

[Arno Wagner]

My system continues to have data corruption issues with the large
drives. Initially, Windows XP gave me a "Windows - Write Delay Error" [...]
Silicon.Image.Serial.ATA.driver.v1.0.0.29
nVidia nForce MCP2 IDE Contoller

Hi
I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
(seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!

As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
send me an email address or I can post them here.

I had this problem with a defective RAM some years ago. Maybe the
bus-interface of the SATA/IDE RAID controller is just not up to
spec?

MD5 sums are a very good way to check for corruptions (on Linux
use "md5sum <names>" to generate and "md5sum -c <file with list>"
to compare). I have used this method with very good succes for
several years now.

Arno

 

[Mr. Grinch]

As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum
routine from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter
to the MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left
it running for a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss
match but not the same files all the time ie some would read ok on one
pass but not the next. If you want my two DOS batch files let me know
( they are short and simple may not be the best bit of work but they
do work!) send me an email address or I can post them here.

I'd be interested in seeing your batch files for testing.

 

[Robert Neville]

Here's a response from Asus's Lee Broughton to my situation.

<< Sir if you will do a search on google for 137 gb windows limitation
you will see that this is actually an OS problem, you will also find
the registry fix needed to reolve the problem you are having. Please
do not respond to this email if you still need assistance please
contact our tech support office at 502-995-0883 and give the
technician who picks up this case number. >>

I found his tone arrogant. Why could he not provide a link to the
registry fix? Cuz it doesn't work anymore. Here's the backup.

http://www.storageforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2601

This registry hack is no longer needed (and indeed no longer works) if
you update ATAPI.SYS

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013


note also, that there is a possibility of data corruption with suspend
and hibernate modes and ATAPI.SYS versions prior to 1135, so you
should use the updated ATAPI.SYS in preference to the reg hack method
in any case.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;331958

This fix has been working for me so far (along with the bios and SATA
driver updates).

 

[mr potatohead]

As another poster suggested, do run (complete) memory tests.

Also try DocMemory:
http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp

It helped me in detecting memory -> disk corruption when pushing memory
too hard. I hate this sort of problem because you can't do much with
your system. With every operation you run the risk of corrupting data.

I don't think it's the 48 bit LBA issue because that only applies to
IDE. Your SII controller should present itself as a SCSI controller,
which clearly supports > 137 GB drives. Are you sure you're not using
an integrated SATA controller running under some kind of "ide legacy
mode"? Only then would EnableBigLba possibly make a difference.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

As another poster suggested, do run (complete) memory tests.

Also try DocMemory:
http://www.simmtester.com/page/products/doc/docinfo.asp

It helped me in detecting memory -> disk corruption when pushing memory
too hard. I hate this sort of problem because you can't do much with
your system. With every operation you run the risk of corrupting data.

I don't think it's the 48 bit LBA issue because that only applies to
IDE. Your SII controller should present itself as a SCSI controller,
which clearly supports > 137 GB drives. Are you sure you're not using
an integrated SATA controller running under some kind of "ide legacy
mode"? Only then would EnableBigLba possibly make a difference.

Potatohead huh? How fitting that name is ......

 

[jack]

: "mr potatohead" <"mr potatohead"> wrote in message
: <snip>
: Potatohead huh? How fitting that name is ......

Another stunning troll by Folknut the Trollboy. LOL!

J.

 

[geno_cyber]

MemTest86 3.1a has better patterns for memory testing.

http://www.memtest86.com

I had issues with some Corsair XMS3200 modules that other tests were detecting as good and that
MemTest86 found to be defective instead (and two years ago I had issues with a cheap Elixir 512MB
PC2100 module that I found out to be defective with MemTest86 and I was experiencing strange data
corruption under Win2K first and XP later on although the system seemed to work perfectly--files got
corrupted and I was thinking it was due to the P4B266 motherboard southbridge but it was the RAM
instead)
I never use any RAM modules that can't pass all MemTest86 tests with zero errors.

 

[Walter Epp]

I have the same sort of problem, did not resolve it though. My Gigabyte
board has a SATA and IDE Raid as well as the "standard" IDE disc setup, all
the controllers other than the "standard" give repeated data corruption
(seems to be only data read). My poor work around was to not use them!

As to testing, I used a set of large files and run a MD5 checksum routine
from a batch file that has the "real" MD5 in it as a parameter to the
MD5.exe this reports an error if they dont match. I just left it running for
a few hours and several of the files reported MD5 miss match but not the
same files all the time ie some would read ok on one pass but not the next.
If you want my two DOS batch files let me know ( they are short and simple
may not be the best bit of work but they do work!)
send me an email address or I can post them here.

Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
occasionally read the wrong sectors.

Please post the .bat files.

 

[anonymous]

Check out http://www.ata-atapi.com which found some SATA devices
occasionally read the wrong sectors.

damn. this is some ugly stuff.



Serial ATA (SATA or SATA-1)
FIRST, THINGS YOU DO NOT DO WHEN USING SATA!


If you are setting up a system using SATA here are some things you
must be aware of:

DO NOT operate SATA devices outside of a sealed system unit. DO NOT
operate SATA devices from a power supply that is not the system unit's
power supply.
DO NOT tie wrap SATA cables together. DO NOT put sharp bends in SATA
cables. DO NOT route SATA cables near PATA cables. Avoid placing SATA
devices close to each other such that the SATA cable connectors are
close to each other.
DO NOT operate a radio transmitter (such as a cell phone) near an
exposed SATA cable or device.
Why all these warning? The basic problem is the SATA cable connector
is not shielded. This has to be the number one most stupid thing that
has been done in the SATA world.

More at above website url

 

[J. Clarke]

damn. this is some ugly stuff.



Serial ATA (SATA or SATA-1)
FIRST, THINGS YOU DO NOT DO WHEN USING SATA!


If you are setting up a system using SATA here are some things you
must be aware of:

DO NOT operate SATA devices outside of a sealed system unit. DO NOT
operate SATA devices from a power supply that is not the system unit's
power supply.
DO NOT tie wrap SATA cables together. DO NOT put sharp bends in SATA
cables. DO NOT route SATA cables near PATA cables. Avoid placing SATA
devices close to each other such that the SATA cable connectors are
close to each other.
DO NOT operate a radio transmitter (such as a cell phone) near an
exposed SATA cable or device.
Why all these warning? The basic problem is the SATA cable connector
is not shielded. This has to be the number one most stupid thing that
has been done in the SATA world.

More at above website url

This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
yahoo spouting off on a Web site.

In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?

Can you say FUD?

 

[Mr. Grinch]

This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
yahoo spouting off on a Web site.

In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?

Can you say FUD?

This is the problem I have with that page. It makes claims but it doesn't
back any of it up with documentation or even explanations. It's no better
than the "secret society" he's complaining about.

I took a look inside my computer and none of the connectors are shielded.
PCI, ISA, Memory, SCSI 50 pin, SCSI LVD, ATA-33, ATA-133, Power, ATI TV MMC
ribbon, Sound Card, SPDIF, even the dual Slot 1 CPU sockets

The only thing I could remotely considered shielded are the DIN connectors
for video, serial, and parallel, but that's more for grounding than
shielding.

It's been a long time since I worked on IBMs SSA, IBM's version of serial
interface to drives. But I don't remember their cables or connectors having
sheilds. Can anyone else with more recent experience with IBM SSA confirm
the nature of their cables and connectors? How about SAS? I just did some
googles on SSA and SAS but so far have found nothing to confirm if the
connectors are sheilded or not.

 

[Eric Gisin]

GB Ethernet uses all four twisted pairs, and SATA/SAS use two pairs and 50%
higher clock.

This is the problem I have with that page. It makes claims but it doesn't
back any of it up with documentation or even explanations. It's no better
than the "secret society" he's complaining about.

I took a look inside my computer and none of the connectors are shielded.
PCI, ISA, Memory, SCSI 50 pin, SCSI LVD, ATA-33, ATA-133, Power, ATI TV MMC
ribbon, Sound Card, SPDIF, even the dual Slot 1 CPU sockets

Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133 and
40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't know the
clock (less than 1GHz).

SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you can
expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding this
problem.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133
and 40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't
know the clock (less than 1GHz).

SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you
can expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding
this problem.

That's what I was thinking about with regards to SATA. The web site is
specifically talking about the connector not being sheilded, not the cable,
so I didn't bother mentioning the cable itself.

I notice some places sell shielded SATA cables. But it's not the only way to
improve the cables. As you point out, interference can be reduced by
changing the twist pattern of the cables. I don't know if that is part of
any SATA spec or not.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

This is of course if you accept Hale Landis as being an authority. In
science no result is accepted until it is independently replicated. Have
his results been independently replicated? If not then he's just one more
yahoo spouting off on a Web site.

In any case, the parallel ATA connector is not shielded. Neither is the
SCSI connector. Nor the gigabit Ethernet connector for that matter. All
of them work fine. So why is SATA any different?

Can you say FUD?

Is that an acronym for SCSI zealot?

 

[Ron Reaugh]

GB Ethernet uses all four twisted pairs, and SATA/SAS use two pairs and 50%
higher clock.

Until now, the highest clock on internal cables was 33MHz for UDMA-133 and
40MHz for Ultra-320. Externally there is GB Ethernet, but I don't know the
clock (less than 1GHz).

SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you can
expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding this
problem.

And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the run
length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?