SATA Disk writes too slow

[GuilleFC]

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.

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

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.

 

[Mike Walsh]

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]

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.

 

[GuilleFC]

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.

 

[kony]

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.


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.

 

[GuilleFC]

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.

 

[kony]

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).

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).

 

[GuilleFC]

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.

 

[kony]

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.

 

[Geir Klemetsen]

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.

Two things you may do to find out wheter it's the hd or mobo that causes the
low writing speed. Assuming that you have access on either an extra hd or
second machine that support sata-disks:

1: Test the hd in a different machine to see if the write speed is low. If
it's low on the other machine, the hd is probably bad. Otherwise (if writing
speed is ok) there is a most likely a problem with your raid controller and
the drives for it.

2: If you have another sata-drive avaiable, exchange it with the hd that you
experiences low writing speed with. If the other hd also writes slow, there
is probably your raid-controller and drives for it that causes the problem.
Otherwise, your hd is probably broken.

* hd = HardDrive ; mobo = MOtherBOard.

 

[GuilleFC]

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.

In my case, how can I tell? I'd bet my motherboard manufacturer is MSI
and chipset manufacturer is VIA, I've checked both websites and they
both offer the same latest updates. Should I pretend I'm correctly
updated?

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.

The only PCI devices that I have are a FireWire card and the Pinnacle
PCTV Pro. Usually when I can anticipate a high CPU utilization, like
compiling a large edited video, I go away and leave the computer alone
to do her work. Anyway, I have not seen any difference since I changed
it to 96 so I'll lower it back.

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

Thank you Kony.

 

[kony]

In my case, how can I tell? I'd bet my motherboard manufacturer is MSI
and chipset manufacturer is VIA, I've checked both websites and they
both offer the same latest updates. Should I pretend I'm correctly
updated?

The driver versio numbers should tell you. Not necessarily
what the "named" version number is as sometimes the
manufacturer brands drivers or renumbers them, but the
readme files, the properties for some key files, or
properties seen for driver/device in Device Manager should
tell the version. When it doubt it's generally best to just
go to chipset manufacturer and get their latest.

You might as well leave the drivers alone if they are
updated, unless you had suspected corruption.

The only PCI devices that I have are a FireWire card and the Pinnacle
PCTV Pro. Usually when I can anticipate a high CPU utilization, like
compiling a large edited video, I go away and leave the computer alone
to do her work. Anyway, I have not seen any difference since I changed
it to 96 so I'll lower it back.

I was mistaken above, I wrote "CPU Utilization" when I meant
"PCI utilization". Most boards don't need 96, but in the
past few years Via boards seemed likely, most often to need
more than 32.

 

[GuilleFC]

Two things you may do to find out wheter it's the hd or mobo that causes the

low writing speed. Assuming that you have access on either an extra hd or
second machine that support sata-disks:

1: Test the hd in a different machine to see if the write speed is low. If
it's low on the other machine, the hd is probably bad. Otherwise (if writing
speed is ok) there is a most likely a problem with your raid controller and
the drives for it.

2: If you have another sata-drive avaiable, exchange it with the hd that you
experiences low writing speed with. If the other hd also writes slow, there
is probably your raid-controller and drives for it that causes the problem.
Otherwise, your hd is probably broken.

* hd = HardDrive ; mobo = MOtherBOard.

Just before I read your message, I was doing exactly what you said,
and the results are astounding:

1: My disk in another machine goes fast (received a 3 GB file in about
2 min).

2: Other SATA disk in my machine goes fast too.

If it wasn't because the lent disk is a 40 GB and mine is a 250 GB, I
would have happily changed them.

Now I'm completely lost and don't know what to do :'''''''(

Thank you Geir.

 

[Geir Klemetsen]

Just before I read your message, I was doing exactly what you said,
and the results are astounding:

1: My disk in another machine goes fast (received a 3 GB file in about
2 min).

2: Other SATA disk in my machine goes fast too.

Oops! Seems that your mobo and hd simply doesn't like each other. A rare
event, i'm sorry to say. I beleive the only way out of this will cost money.
That is the price of a new sata raid card.

Doesn't know if this info can help you (probably not):
A couple of months ago I had a problem with my internal raid controller. My
mobo is "Abit KG7-RAID" and has a "HighPoint HPT3xx ATA RAID Controller" on
it. I bought a new 160Gib hd on the raid controller and therefor i had to
upgrade the bios. In my case, the bios upgrade program upgraded both the
main bios and the bios on the raid controller. When i installed the 160 gib
hd, my windows 2000 sp4 didn't see more than 128 Gib when the disc was
atached onto the raid controller. But when I swapped the disk over to the
IDE2 (as slave as the cd-player was the master) for testing, windows (and in
bios) the disc shows up as a 160 Gib hd. I swapped the disc back onto the
raid-controller, and decided to find out what caused the problem. Next time
i rebootet my computer I went into the raid controller bios screen (before
windows loads) by clicking Ctrl + H. Then i saw that the raid controller
actually recognised the whole disk. hd shows up as a 160 Gib hd.
Now i understand it was a windows problem. It shows up that i had to
upgrade the driver to the raid controller after upgrading the bios. After
that everything seems to work fine. (exept a rare problem: when mounting a
cd image using daemon tools that is stored on a disk that is atachet to the
raid controller, windows hangs! It never happends if the image is located on
a drive that is atached to IDE1 or IDE2.

Just when writing this i got an idea (sort of the last thing you can try).
Eliminate the posibility that it is a windows problem:
*Make sure you have at least one a fat32 partition on both disks.
*Make a big file (filesize >= 500 Mb) onto the hd that works fine.
*boot into dos, using a win98 startup floppy.
*copy the file from the god hd into the bad hd and see if the copy process
goes slow. Or if it exists a benchmark program that can run under dos, try
it.

That was all i could grab up from my head now. No more ideas. Empty. Hope
this info can help : )

 

[GuilleFC]

Oops! Seems that your mobo and hd simply doesn't like each other. A rare

event, i'm sorry to say. I beleive the only way out of this will cost money.
That is the price of a new sata raid card.

This is what I was afraid of. How much could (or should) it cost?

Doesn't know if this info can help you (probably not):
A couple of months ago I had a problem with my internal raid controller. My
mobo is "Abit KG7-RAID" and has a "HighPoint HPT3xx ATA RAID Controller" on
it. I bought a new 160Gib hd on the raid controller and therefor i had to
upgrade the bios. In my case, the bios upgrade program upgraded both the
main bios and the bios on the raid controller. When i installed the 160 gib
hd, my windows 2000 sp4 didn't see more than 128 Gib when the disc was
atached onto the raid controller. But when I swapped the disk over to the
IDE2 (as slave as the cd-player was the master) for testing, windows (and in
bios) the disc shows up as a 160 Gib hd. I swapped the disc back onto the
raid-controller, and decided to find out what caused the problem. Next time
i rebootet my computer I went into the raid controller bios screen (before
windows loads) by clicking Ctrl + H. Then i saw that the raid controller
actually recognised the whole disk. hd shows up as a 160 Gib hd.
Now i understand it was a windows problem. It shows up that i had to
upgrade the driver to the raid controller after upgrading the bios. After
that everything seems to work fine. (exept a rare problem: when mounting a
cd image using daemon tools that is stored on a disk that is atachet to the
raid controller, windows hangs! It never happends if the image is located on
a drive that is atached to IDE1 or IDE2.

Just when writing this i got an idea (sort of the last thing you can try).
Eliminate the posibility that it is a windows problem:
*Make sure you have at least one a fat32 partition on both disks.
*Make a big file (filesize >= 500 Mb) onto the hd that works fine.
*boot into dos, using a win98 startup floppy.
*copy the file from the god hd into the bad hd and see if the copy process
goes slow. Or if it exists a benchmark program that can run under dos, try
it.

This test showed it's not a Windows problem. I took a 1.64 GB file
(1.768.831.448 bytes) and took more than 13 minutes to be copied.

Surprisingly, it took 9 minutes to be copied back (after deleted) to
the PATA disk. (???)

That was all i could grab up from my head now. No more ideas. Empty. Hope
this info can help : )

Thank you Geir for all your help.