Problem making external SATA drive internal.

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012.

  1. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    internal.

    I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled out.

    So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there, nothing in
    BIOS
    indicates I have a SATA drive.


    i have never used a SATA drive internally before.

    I am wondering what the problem is?

    A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine condition.

    I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any driver.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:yfxks.55219$4...
    > OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    > internal.
    >
    > I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled out.
    >
    > So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    > the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there, nothing
    > in BIOS
    > indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >
    >
    > i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >
    > I am wondering what the problem is?
    >
    > A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    > has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    > condition.
    >
    > I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any driver.
    >
    >


    I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    the drive.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:snxks.176408$4...
    >
    > "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    > news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >> internal.
    >>
    >> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >> out.
    >>
    >> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there, nothing
    >> in BIOS
    >> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>
    >>
    >> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>
    >> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>
    >> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >> condition.
    >>
    >> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any driver.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    > am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    > the drive.
    >
    >


    wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor quality,
    appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    connections.

    I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will buy
    another,
    only 99p at local store.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012
    #3
  4. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    > "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    > news:snxks.176408$4...
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >>> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >>> internal.
    >>>
    >>> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >>> out.
    >>>
    >>> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >>> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there, nothing
    >>> in BIOS
    >>> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>>
    >>> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>>
    >>> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >>> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >>> condition.
    >>>
    >>> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any driver.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    >> am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    >> the drive.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor quality,
    > appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    > connections.
    >
    > I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will buy
    > another,
    > only 99p at local store.


    Occasionally, the problem with detection is due to the
    BIOS module running the SATA chip. At least one chip was
    set up *only* for RAID. And in that case, you needed to
    connect two hard drives, before the BIOS code would respond.
    It makes that particular SATA chip and pair of ports,
    kinda useless.

    But that doesn't happen too often. Most of the rest
    are quite reasonable when it comes to their behavior.

    It should "just work" :) (famous last words)

    On SATA cables, all of mine came in the motherboard
    box. And they all worked, with no complaints. Maybe
    insertion force is a little high on a couple of them.

    There is one other kind of fault you won't want to
    run into. Some SATA connectors on the motherboard, were
    so poorly made, when you go to pull out the red SATA data
    cable when you're done, it pulls the motherboard connector
    right out of the motherboard :) Again, that's an older
    system. In terms of connector design, SATA got off
    to a poor start, with snapped connectors, lack of
    retention features (cable falls out), stuff that should
    have been caught. But for the most part, the stuff I've
    tried recently has behaved itself.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 1, 2012
    #4
  5. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6uhuh$teh$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:snxks.176408$4...
    >>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >>>> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >>>> internal.
    >>>>
    >>>> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >>>> out.
    >>>>
    >>>> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >>>> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there,
    >>>> nothing in BIOS
    >>>> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>>>
    >>>> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >>>> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >>>> condition.
    >>>>
    >>>> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any
    >>>> driver.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    >>> am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    >>> the drive.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor
    >> quality,
    >> appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    >> connections.
    >>
    >> I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will
    >> buy another,
    >> only 99p at local store.

    >
    > Occasionally, the problem with detection is due to the
    > BIOS module running the SATA chip. At least one chip was
    > set up *only* for RAID. And in that case, you needed to
    > connect two hard drives, before the BIOS code would respond.
    > It makes that particular SATA chip and pair of ports,
    > kinda useless.
    >
    > But that doesn't happen too often. Most of the rest
    > are quite reasonable when it comes to their behavior.
    >
    > It should "just work" :) (famous last words)
    >
    > On SATA cables, all of mine came in the motherboard
    > box. And they all worked, with no complaints. Maybe
    > insertion force is a little high on a couple of them.
    >
    > There is one other kind of fault you won't want to
    > run into. Some SATA connectors on the motherboard, were
    > so poorly made, when you go to pull out the red SATA data
    > cable when you're done, it pulls the motherboard connector
    > right out of the motherboard :) Again, that's an older
    > system. In terms of connector design, SATA got off
    > to a poor start, with snapped connectors, lack of
    > retention features (cable falls out),


    Yea the cable kind of fell out as well, and it was cracked (not sure if I
    did that)
    but it had useless connectors.

    >stuff that should
    > have been caught. But for the most part, the stuff I've
    > tried recently has behaved itself.
    >
    > Paul
    >


    Thanks,
    Well I have been down to the computer store and they had no 99p
    cables as advertised online, something that looked a bit fishy anyway as the
    same cable
    was also advertised for £3.99 as seen here:-
    http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/searc...xx/sata cable/1_12/price-asc/xx-criteria.html

    No surprise for guessing the real price (£3.99), anyhow there was also this
    http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/dynam...ide-drive-to-sata-converter-02796375-pdt.html

    Which includes a SATA cable on the back (not shown) and also a power cable
    I was not too sure what it does but it may come in useful, I think it will
    convert
    my existing (good) IDE drive to a SATA, thus it will do the same for the bad
    drive so
    it might be interesting to see if connecting it as a SATA improves it's boot
    problems.


    Anyway back to the new cable, that worked fine and the drive was detected in
    the BIOS
    at boot .Windows did want to check it for errors, which it did and found
    none. I assume/hope it
    won't want to do that every boot time.

    But it's looking pretty good at the moment, I shoud be be able to make that
    drive bootable.
    It's 500GB, twice the size of the bad drive and 6 times the size of this
    80gb drive.
    So I will have to decide how to partition it, there is room for an extra
    partitionon it,
    so maybe I could have LINUX on it as well or whatever.
    It also should be faster, at least faster than this one.

    I tried a bennchmark on it with ND tune and it started at doin 60mb/s an
    dropped off
    to 40mb/s a the end. I also ran it on this old drive t compare and it
    started at 55mb/s
    and dropped down to 30mb/s so maybe not much fasster, however within that
    the speed
    dropped dramattically a few time, perhap because it was in use elsewhere, I
    wil have to check up on that
    as it might be problem. (but probably not).

    I got the faulty SATA cable form here.

    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=251018535527&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:GB:3160

    I can't really complain at the price (£2 in P&P - lol) because at least the
    power cable was OK. The SATA cable
    had very pooor connectors, soft plastic poorly moulded covering some
    conections completely.

    I think I said I also got an external IDE enclosure which works well so I
    can use
    the bad drive as well now, I tried running an error scann on it, but it was
    very slow as
    an external drive. It did fnd errors which were different from the when I
    scanned it before,
    there was a series of red bocks together as opposed to being scattered in 4
    spots before hand,
    so maybe the dirve is getting bad. It also kind of got stuck on the scan,
    maybe I will try scanning
    with a differeent drive scan test, the one I used first time for a better
    comparision.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012
    #5
  6. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6uhuh$teh$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >> news:snxks.176408$4...
    >>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >>>> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >>>> internal.
    >>>>
    >>>> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >>>> out.
    >>>>
    >>>> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >>>> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there,
    >>>> nothing in BIOS
    >>>> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>>>
    >>>> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >>>> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >>>> condition.
    >>>>
    >>>> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any
    >>>> driver.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    >>> am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    >>> the drive.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor
    >> quality,
    >> appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    >> connections.
    >>
    >> I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will
    >> buy another,
    >> only 99p at local store.

    >
    > Occasionally, the problem with detection is due to the
    > BIOS module running the SATA chip. At least one chip was
    > set up *only* for RAID. And in that case, you needed to
    > connect two hard drives, before the BIOS code would respond.
    > It makes that particular SATA chip and pair of ports,
    > kinda useless.
    >
    > But that doesn't happen too often. Most of the rest
    > are quite reasonable when it comes to their behavior.
    >
    > It should "just work" :) (famous last words)
    >
    > On SATA cables, all of mine came in the motherboard
    > box. And they all worked, with no complaints. Maybe
    > insertion force is a little high on a couple of them.
    >
    > There is one other kind of fault you won't want to
    > run into. Some SATA connectors on the motherboard, were
    > so poorly made, when you go to pull out the red SATA data
    > cable when you're done, it pulls the motherboard connector
    > right out of the motherboard :) Again, that's an older
    > system. In terms of connector design, SATA got off
    > to a poor start, with snapped connectors, lack of
    > retention features (cable falls out), stuff that should
    > have been caught. But for the most part, the stuff I've
    > tried recently has behaved itself.
    >
    > Paul


    Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter too
    much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.
    >
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 1, 2012
    #6
  7. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:

    >
    > Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    > FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter too
    > much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.


    There's the 4GB file size limit on FAT32.

    Don't start downloading a 4.5GB file to that disk with your
    browser, because it may claim "no space left" before the
    download finishes.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 1, 2012
    #7
  8. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6us1d$r9v$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    >> FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter too
    >> much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.

    >
    > There's the 4GB file size limit on FAT32.
    >
    > Don't start downloading a 4.5GB file to that disk with your
    > browser, because it may claim "no space left" before the
    > download finishes.
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >



    Don't think I have ever downloaded any single file mush more than 1 gig.
    The biggest files I have are recordings from TV which used to get up to
    about 4.5gb, so presmably they were split at that point for some reason
    as there were none bigger. But it was a not a FAT32 drive so I am unsure
    why,
    but 4.5 gb is pretty bing.

    I break my recording into 650gb chunks anyway because the recorder
    has a tendancy to lose some files, so the ssmaller the better.
    Maybe the lost files were indicative of problems on the drive however
    I was unaware of any other files being lost.

    Allso would it being FAT32 make the drive slow?
    The benchmark I got for it seeems slow which is a bit disappointing,
    perhaps as it is was an external drive used ove a usb 2 interface there was
    no need
    for the drive to be fast, hence it isn't.


    THe drives id is
    WD5000AAVS-00ZTBO or perhaps
    WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0

    One theread here says

    http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/slow-write-speeds-wd-500gb-drive-t4048173.html

    "although its reading speeds seem normal (around 50-60 MB/
    s), its write speeds were shockingly low (around 10 MB/s,"

    The read speed seems sonsistant with my benchmark (60mb/s) not sure about
    the write speed, it wasnot given in the bencmark I did.


    Here
    http://reviews.cnet.com/internal-hard-drives/wd-caviar-green-wd5000aavs/4507-9998_7-33181708.html

    It gives speed of 300 300 MBps 300 MBps 300 MBpsMBps which seems very
    fast, but it;s not the full drive ID.

    I will have to do some more searching.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 2, 2012
    #8
  9. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k6us1d$r9v$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>
    >>> Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    >>> FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter too
    >>> much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.

    >> There's the 4GB file size limit on FAT32.
    >>
    >> Don't start downloading a 4.5GB file to that disk with your
    >> browser, because it may claim "no space left" before the
    >> download finishes.
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Don't think I have ever downloaded any single file mush more than 1 gig.
    > The biggest files I have are recordings from TV which used to get up to
    > about 4.5gb, so presmably they were split at that point for some reason
    > as there were none bigger. But it was a not a FAT32 drive so I am unsure
    > why,
    > but 4.5 gb is pretty bing.
    >
    > I break my recording into 650gb chunks anyway because the recorder
    > has a tendancy to lose some files, so the ssmaller the better.
    > Maybe the lost files were indicative of problems on the drive however
    > I was unaware of any other files being lost.
    >
    > Allso would it being FAT32 make the drive slow?
    > The benchmark I got for it seeems slow which is a bit disappointing,
    > perhaps as it is was an external drive used ove a usb 2 interface there was
    > no need
    > for the drive to be fast, hence it isn't.
    >
    >
    > THe drives id is
    > WD5000AAVS-00ZTBO or perhaps
    > WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0
    >
    > One theread here says
    >
    > http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/slow-write-speeds-wd-500gb-drive-t4048173.html
    >
    > "although its reading speeds seem normal (around 50-60 MB/
    > s), its write speeds were shockingly low (around 10 MB/s,"
    >
    > The read speed seems sonsistant with my benchmark (60mb/s) not sure about
    > the write speed, it wasnot given in the bencmark I did.
    >
    >
    > Here
    > http://reviews.cnet.com/internal-hard-drives/wd-caviar-green-wd5000aavs/4507-9998_7-33181708.html
    >
    > It gives speed of 300 300 MBps 300 MBps 300 MBpsMBps which seems very
    > fast, but it;s not the full drive ID.
    >
    > I will have to do some more searching.


    HDTune doesn't use the file system when benchmarking. For example,
    if you had a Linux EXT3 disk plugged into your Windows computer,
    Windows couldn't see any of the partitions, but yet, HDTune
    could benchmark it. That's because HDTune accesses the device
    at the block level, and not through a file system.

    The payware version of HDTune supports write benchmarking.
    While the free version just does read benchmarks (non-destructive).

    Write speed at the file system level can be slow on a modern
    disk, due to 4KB internal sectors plus 512e emulation. That's
    where the alignment of the partition, with respect to 4KB
    boundaries comes into play. I've tried to fix that by hand
    (doing alignment in Linux), but never succeeded in ending
    up with something I could actually use. (Always some piece of
    software complaining about something...)

    Linux is capable of reporting the internal sector type used.
    The fdisk command would show something like this, if you
    have a disk with 4KB internal sectors, but providing 512
    byte emulation suitable for usage with older OSes (so-called 512e).

    Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 512 bytes

    This article shows an example of fdisk output. The line of
    interest, is sandwiched in the blurb when fdisk starts.
    In this example, the disk shows 512 / 512 and no emulation
    of sector size is involved.

    http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/

    So that's an "excuse" for a modern disk to be slow. I've seen
    some peculiar behavior on my 500GB disks, whereas older
    smaller disks are much more predictable. The older disks
    are slow, because, well, they're slow. Whereas the more
    modern disks are fast under some circumstances (HDTune),
    and not in others (the real world).

    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 2, 2012
    #9
  10. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:viCks.93519$4...
    >
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k6uhuh$teh$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:snxks.176408$4...
    >>>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >>>>> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >>>>> internal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >>>>> out.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >>>>> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there,
    >>>>> nothing in BIOS
    >>>>> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >>>>> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >>>>> condition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any
    >>>>> driver.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    >>>> am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong with
    >>>> the drive.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor
    >>> quality,
    >>> appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    >>> connections.
    >>>
    >>> I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will
    >>> buy another,
    >>> only 99p at local store.

    >>
    >> Occasionally, the problem with detection is due to the
    >> BIOS module running the SATA chip. At least one chip was
    >> set up *only* for RAID. And in that case, you needed to
    >> connect two hard drives, before the BIOS code would respond.
    >> It makes that particular SATA chip and pair of ports,
    >> kinda useless.
    >>
    >> But that doesn't happen too often. Most of the rest
    >> are quite reasonable when it comes to their behavior.
    >>
    >> It should "just work" :) (famous last words)
    >>
    >> On SATA cables, all of mine came in the motherboard
    >> box. And they all worked, with no complaints. Maybe
    >> insertion force is a little high on a couple of them.
    >>
    >> There is one other kind of fault you won't want to
    >> run into. Some SATA connectors on the motherboard, were
    >> so poorly made, when you go to pull out the red SATA data
    >> cable when you're done, it pulls the motherboard connector
    >> right out of the motherboard :) Again, that's an older
    >> system. In terms of connector design, SATA got off
    >> to a poor start, with snapped connectors, lack of
    >> retention features (cable falls out),

    >
    > Yea the cable kind of fell out as well, and it was cracked (not sure if I
    > did that)
    > but it had useless connectors.
    >
    >>stuff that should
    >> have been caught. But for the most part, the stuff I've
    >> tried recently has behaved itself.
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>

    >
    > Thanks,
    > Well I have been down to the computer store and they had no 99p
    > cables as advertised online, something that looked a bit fishy anyway as
    > the same cable
    > was also advertised for £3.99 as seen here:-
    > http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/searc...xx/sata cable/1_12/price-asc/xx-criteria.html
    >
    > No surprise for guessing the real price (£3.99), anyhow there was also
    > this
    > http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/dynam...ide-drive-to-sata-converter-02796375-pdt.html
    >
    > Which includes a SATA cable on the back (not shown) and also a power cable
    > I was not too sure what it does but it may come in useful, I think it will
    > convert
    > my existing (good) IDE drive to a SATA, thus it will do the same for the
    > bad drive so
    > it might be interesting to see if connecting it as a SATA improves it's
    > boot problems.
    >
    >
    > Anyway back to the new cable, that worked fine and the drive was detected
    > in the BIOS
    > at boot .Windows did want to check it for errors, which it did and found
    > none. I assume/hope it
    > won't want to do that every boot time.
    >
    > But it's looking pretty good at the moment, I shoud be be able to make
    > that drive bootable.
    > It's 500GB, twice the size of the bad drive and 6 times the size of this
    > 80gb drive.
    > So I will have to decide how to partition it, there is room for an extra
    > partitionon it,
    > so maybe I could have LINUX on it as well or whatever.
    > It also should be faster, at least faster than this one.
    >
    > I tried a bennchmark on it with ND tune and it started at doin 60mb/s an
    > dropped off
    > to 40mb/s a the end. I also ran it on this old drive t compare and it
    > started at 55mb/s
    > and dropped down to 30mb/s so maybe not much fasster, however within that
    > the speed
    > dropped dramattically a few time, perhap because it was in use elsewhere,
    > I wil have to check up on that
    > as it might be problem. (but probably not).



    I will have to check those benchmarks, the speeds do not look that slow,
    it's just that
    the old drive appeared to be faster than it had been in the past hence the
    500GB drive
    may not be slow afterall.

    Iknow I reported in an earlier post that a copy fI did from the 80gb to the
    250 gb
    works out at 25 megabytes/s which is slow in comparison, but then wiith it
    being a wrtie
    you woudl expect that.


    i alos have these results with
    http://crystalmark.info/?lang=en
    500gb internal drive
    read write

    seq 76.17 73.63 (MB/S)
    512k 34.48 43.64
    4k 0..503 1.301
    4k qd32 0.575 1.288



    250gb external drive (the bad drive in an enclosure) or was it the 80GB
    internal drive?
    I think it was the 80GB internal drive actually, but I was also running a
    drive scan on it at the same
    time so not a very good test realllly!!
    read write
    seq 36 30 (MB/S)
    512k 19.78 16.92
    4k 0.300 0.705
    4k qd32 0.497 0.691



    I will have to repeat the test under better conditions.




    >
    > I got the faulty SATA cable form here.
    >
    > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=251018535527&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:GB:3160
    >
    > I can't really complain at the price (£2 in P&P - lol) because at least
    > the power cable was OK. The SATA cable
    > had very pooor connectors, soft plastic poorly moulded covering some
    > conections completely.
    >
    > I think I said I also got an external IDE enclosure which works well so I
    > can use
    > the bad drive as well now, I tried running an error scann on it, but it
    > was very slow as
    > an external drive. It did fnd errors which were different from the when I
    > scanned it before,
    > there was a series of red bocks together as opposed to being scattered in
    > 4 spots before hand,
    > so maybe the dirve is getting bad. It also kind of got stuck on the scan,
    > maybe I will try scanning
    > with a differeent drive scan test, the one I used first time for a better
    > comparision.
    >
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 2, 2012
    #10
  11. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    news:iIGks.93632$4...
    >
    > "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    > news:viCks.93519$4...
    >>
    >> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >> news:k6uhuh$teh$...
    >>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:snxks.176408$4...
    >>>>> "R. Giggs." <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:yfxks.55219$4...
    >>>>>> OK so I have a 500gb external USB sata drive and I wanted to make it
    >>>>>> internal.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I opened up the case and when I dismanteled it a bit the drive pulled
    >>>>>> out.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So I then bought a SATA cable and a SATA power cable and connected i
    >>>>>> the drive in my computer but it is as if the drive is not there,
    >>>>>> nothing in BIOS
    >>>>>> indicates I have a SATA drive.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> i have never used a SATA drive internally before.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I am wondering what the problem is?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A poor connection? The SATA connector on the mobo
    >>>>>> has never been used (6 years +) so it wil hardly be in pristine
    >>>>>> condition.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I was thinking perhaps drivers but I don't think I would need any
    >>>>>> driver.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I should ass I have put the drive back in to it's usb housing and I
    >>>>> am using it again as an external drive, so there was nothing wrong
    >>>>> with
    >>>>> the drive.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> wel i think i ha foudn the problem, the data data cable, very poor
    >>>> quality,
    >>>> appears to have plastic over the conenction on one side, covering 2-3
    >>>> connections.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am atemptng to scrape this off toexpose the connector, if not I will
    >>>> buy another,
    >>>> only 99p at local store.
    >>>
    >>> Occasionally, the problem with detection is due to the
    >>> BIOS module running the SATA chip. At least one chip was
    >>> set up *only* for RAID. And in that case, you needed to
    >>> connect two hard drives, before the BIOS code would respond.
    >>> It makes that particular SATA chip and pair of ports,
    >>> kinda useless.
    >>>
    >>> But that doesn't happen too often. Most of the rest
    >>> are quite reasonable when it comes to their behavior.
    >>>
    >>> It should "just work" :) (famous last words)
    >>>
    >>> On SATA cables, all of mine came in the motherboard
    >>> box. And they all worked, with no complaints. Maybe
    >>> insertion force is a little high on a couple of them.
    >>>
    >>> There is one other kind of fault you won't want to
    >>> run into. Some SATA connectors on the motherboard, were
    >>> so poorly made, when you go to pull out the red SATA data
    >>> cable when you're done, it pulls the motherboard connector
    >>> right out of the motherboard :) Again, that's an older
    >>> system. In terms of connector design, SATA got off
    >>> to a poor start, with snapped connectors, lack of
    >>> retention features (cable falls out),

    >>
    >> Yea the cable kind of fell out as well, and it was cracked (not sure if I
    >> did that)
    >> but it had useless connectors.
    >>
    >>>stuff that should
    >>> have been caught. But for the most part, the stuff I've
    >>> tried recently has behaved itself.
    >>>
    >>> Paul
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Well I have been down to the computer store and they had no 99p
    >> cables as advertised online, something that looked a bit fishy anyway as
    >> the same cable
    >> was also advertised for £3.99 as seen here:-
    >> http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/searc...xx/sata cable/1_12/price-asc/xx-criteria.html
    >>
    >> No surprise for guessing the real price (£3.99), anyhow there was also
    >> this
    >> http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/dynam...ide-drive-to-sata-converter-02796375-pdt.html
    >>
    >> Which includes a SATA cable on the back (not shown) and also a power
    >> cable
    >> I was not too sure what it does but it may come in useful, I think it
    >> will convert
    >> my existing (good) IDE drive to a SATA, thus it will do the same for the
    >> bad drive so
    >> it might be interesting to see if connecting it as a SATA improves it's
    >> boot problems.
    >>
    >>
    >> Anyway back to the new cable, that worked fine and the drive was detected
    >> in the BIOS
    >> at boot .Windows did want to check it for errors, which it did and found
    >> none. I assume/hope it
    >> won't want to do that every boot time.
    >>
    >> But it's looking pretty good at the moment, I shoud be be able to make
    >> that drive bootable.
    >> It's 500GB, twice the size of the bad drive and 6 times the size of this
    >> 80gb drive.
    >> So I will have to decide how to partition it, there is room for an extra
    >> partitionon it,
    >> so maybe I could have LINUX on it as well or whatever.
    >> It also should be faster, at least faster than this one.
    >>
    >> I tried a bennchmark on it with ND tune and it started at doin 60mb/s an
    >> dropped off
    >> to 40mb/s a the end. I also ran it on this old drive t compare and it
    >> started at 55mb/s
    >> and dropped down to 30mb/s so maybe not much fasster, however within that
    >> the speed
    >> dropped dramattically a few time, perhap because it was in use elsewhere,
    >> I wil have to check up on that
    >> as it might be problem. (but probably not).

    >
    >
    > I will have to check those benchmarks, the speeds do not look that slow,
    > it's just that
    > the old drive appeared to be faster than it had been in the past hence the
    > 500GB drive
    > may not be slow afterall.
    >
    > Iknow I reported in an earlier post that a copy fI did from the 80gb to
    > the 250 gb
    > works out at 25 megabytes/s which is slow in comparison, but then wiith it
    > being a wrtie
    > you woudl expect that.
    >
    >
    > i alos have these results with
    > http://crystalmark.info/?lang=en
    > 500gb internal drive
    > read write
    >
    > seq 76.17 73.63 (MB/S)
    > 512k 34.48 43.64
    > 4k 0..503 1.301
    > 4k qd32 0.575 1.288
    >
    >
    >
    > 250gb external drive (the bad drive in an enclosure) or was it the 80GB
    > internal drive?
    > I think it was the 80GB internal drive actually, but I was also running a
    > drive scan on it at the same
    > time so not a very good test realllly!!
    > read write
    > seq 36 30 (MB/S)
    > 512k 19.78 16.92
    > 4k 0.300 0.705
    > 4k qd32 0.497 0.691
    >
    >
    >
    > I will have to repeat the test under better conditions.
    >


    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...08/Average-Read-Transfer-Performance,658.html

    Some benchmarks above, oneis for the bad drive, which comes in at 58MB/S
    So the 500GB drive may infact be a bit faster, which is what I expected as
    it is a newer drive.


    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> I got the faulty SATA cable form here.
    >>
    >> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=251018535527&ssPageName=ADME:L:OC:GB:3160
    >>
    >> I can't really complain at the price (£2 in P&P - lol) because at least
    >> the power cable was OK. The SATA cable
    >> had very pooor connectors, soft plastic poorly moulded covering some
    >> conections completely.
    >>
    >> I think I said I also got an external IDE enclosure which works well so I
    >> can use
    >> the bad drive as well now, I tried running an error scann on it, but it
    >> was very slow as
    >> an external drive. It did fnd errors which were different from the when
    >> I scanned it before,
    >> there was a series of red bocks together as opposed to being scattered in
    >> 4 spots before hand,
    >> so maybe the dirve is getting bad. It also kind of got stuck on the
    >> scan, maybe I will try scanning
    >> with a differeent drive scan test, the one I used first time for a better
    >> comparision.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 2, 2012
    #11
  12. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:k6vbvm$j4b$...
    > R. Giggs. wrote:
    >> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >> news:k6us1d$r9v$...
    >>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    >>>> FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter
    >>>> too
    >>>> much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.
    >>> There's the 4GB file size limit on FAT32.
    >>>
    >>> Don't start downloading a 4.5GB file to that disk with your
    >>> browser, because it may claim "no space left" before the
    >>> download finishes.
    >>>
    >>> Paul
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Don't think I have ever downloaded any single file mush more than 1 gig.
    >> The biggest files I have are recordings from TV which used to get up to
    >> about 4.5gb, so presmably they were split at that point for some reason
    >> as there were none bigger. But it was a not a FAT32 drive so I am unsure
    >> why,
    >> but 4.5 gb is pretty bing.
    >>
    >> I break my recording into 650gb chunks anyway because the recorder
    >> has a tendancy to lose some files, so the ssmaller the better.
    >> Maybe the lost files were indicative of problems on the drive however
    >> I was unaware of any other files being lost.
    >>
    >> Allso would it being FAT32 make the drive slow?
    >> The benchmark I got for it seeems slow which is a bit disappointing,
    >> perhaps as it is was an external drive used ove a usb 2 interface there
    >> was no need
    >> for the drive to be fast, hence it isn't.
    >>
    >>
    >> THe drives id is
    >> WD5000AAVS-00ZTBO or perhaps
    >> WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0
    >>
    >> One theread here says
    >>
    >> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/slow-write-speeds-wd-500gb-drive-t4048173.html
    >>
    >> "although its reading speeds seem normal (around 50-60 MB/
    >> s), its write speeds were shockingly low (around 10 MB/s,"
    >>
    >> The read speed seems sonsistant with my benchmark (60mb/s) not sure about
    >> the write speed, it wasnot given in the bencmark I did.
    >>
    >>
    >> Here
    >> http://reviews.cnet.com/internal-hard-drives/wd-caviar-green-wd5000aavs/4507-9998_7-33181708.html
    >>
    >> It gives speed of 300 300 MBps 300 MBps 300 MBpsMBps which seems very
    >> fast, but it;s not the full drive ID.
    >>
    >> I will have to do some more searching.

    >
    > HDTune doesn't use the file system when benchmarking. For example,
    > if you had a Linux EXT3 disk plugged into your Windows computer,
    > Windows couldn't see any of the partitions, but yet, HDTune
    > could benchmark it. That's because HDTune accesses the device
    > at the block level, and not through a file system.
    >
    > The payware version of HDTune supports write benchmarking.
    > While the free version just does read benchmarks (non-destructive).


    Yes I can get a bit confused about all this stuff, I think these file
    systems and partitions
    are somewhat artifical constructs, I think ultimately at the lowerst level
    you just tell the drive
    to read or write a particular 'chuck' of data, the correct terminology may
    be block, I'am
    not sure. Although it seems you can have blocks of various sizes.

    I get confused about track and cylinder block sector etc..
    It seems as the drive size increases it is the number of cylinders which
    increases.
    I am finding this program very useful, but I just realised itis a fre trial
    and I onlyhave 9 days
    left!!!

    http://disk-monitor.com/


    I can see from it the number of cyliners gores up from about 10,000, to
    30,000
    to 50,000 on my 80, 250 and 500 GB drives respectively, the number of tracks
    and
    sector remains the same. I don't see how the number of cylinders can be so
    high unless the drive
    has about 20 to 100 platters, but maybe they can? I seem some images of some
    with about 10
    platters.

    >
    > Write speed at the file system level can be slow on a modern
    > disk, due to 4KB internal sectors plus 512e emulation. That's
    > where the alignment of the partition, with respect to 4KB
    > boundaries comes into play. I've tried to fix that by hand
    > (doing alignment in Linux), but never succeeded in ending
    > up with something I could actually use. (Always some piece of
    > software complaining about something...)
    >


    So does the drive phyically read 4kb when the system tells it to read a 512
    byte sector?

    I remember at one time in my first job I was supposed to write driver for a
    disk drive
    after I had written a printer driver, but I just could not understand thier
    descriptions of blocks
    and records etc so they gave up trying to explain it to me, which is pitty
    as I would have liked
    to do that. I prehaps should have just got on with it and figured itout as I
    went along, I often find the
    explaination seems more complicated than the reality, once you know how it
    works.




    > Linux is capable of reporting the internal sector type used.
    > The fdisk command would show something like this, if you
    > have a disk with 4KB internal sectors, but providing 512
    > byte emulation suitable for usage with older OSes (so-called 512e).
    >
    > Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 512 bytes
    >
    > This article shows an example of fdisk output. The line of
    > interest, is sandwiched in the blurb when fdisk starts.
    > In this example, the disk shows 512 / 512 and no emulation
    > of sector size is involved.
    >
    > http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/
    >
    > So that's an "excuse" for a modern disk to be slow. I've seen
    > some peculiar behavior on my 500GB disks, whereas older
    > smaller disks are much more predictable. The older disks
    > are slow, because, well, they're slow. Whereas the more
    > modern disks are fast under some circumstances (HDTune),
    > and not in others (the real world).
    >
    > Paul


    I just noticed that on this page it seems to have the 500GB drive
    which I reported here as WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0
    On the page there is a Western Digital Caviar RE2-GP
    WD5000AACS,SATA/300,500 GB,16 MB Cache

    Which is a fairly similar name, AAVS versus AACS and the speed is 62.10mb/s
    which is slightly faster than the 250gb drive
    Samsung SpinPoint P SP2514N,UltraATA/133,250 GB,8 MB Cache
    Which comes in at 58mb/s (v 62.1mb/s) so slightly faster, which is fine and
    the
    250 gb drive was noticably faster than the old drive, which I am currently
    using.

    So if I can make the 5000gb drive bootable I should be fine. (as long as it
    lasts more
    than a couple of months!!). I sometime wonder if there was a problem with
    that
    disc cloning program I used which caused problems when the drive filled up
    becuase
    the problem occured so soon after using it.

    It willl be lot worse if the same happens on the 500GB drive as it will take
    me longer to fill
    it!!

    I might even try doing the partitioning and formatting by hand so to speak
    using DOS.
    It does not matter if it does not work as I can always redo it. So basicaly
    just make the partition
    format them and copy the stuff acrosss manually. I might learn more that
    way, even if it just to
    learn it does not work!!!
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 2, 2012
    #12
  13. R. Giggs.

    Paul Guest

    R. Giggs. wrote:
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message
    > news:k6vbvm$j4b$...
    >> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>> "Paul" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:k6us1d$r9v$...
    >>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Oh I also notice the 500gb (old external sata drive) is formatted
    >>>>> FAT32 not NTFS, not sure why thtat is but I guees it does not matter
    >>>>> too
    >>>>> much. I'd have to make most NTFS if I make a bootable drive of it.
    >>>> There's the 4GB file size limit on FAT32.
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't start downloading a 4.5GB file to that disk with your
    >>>> browser, because it may claim "no space left" before the
    >>>> download finishes.
    >>>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't think I have ever downloaded any single file mush more than 1 gig.
    >>> The biggest files I have are recordings from TV which used to get up to
    >>> about 4.5gb, so presmably they were split at that point for some reason
    >>> as there were none bigger. But it was a not a FAT32 drive so I am unsure
    >>> why,
    >>> but 4.5 gb is pretty bing.
    >>>
    >>> I break my recording into 650gb chunks anyway because the recorder
    >>> has a tendancy to lose some files, so the ssmaller the better.
    >>> Maybe the lost files were indicative of problems on the drive however
    >>> I was unaware of any other files being lost.
    >>>
    >>> Allso would it being FAT32 make the drive slow?
    >>> The benchmark I got for it seeems slow which is a bit disappointing,
    >>> perhaps as it is was an external drive used ove a usb 2 interface there
    >>> was no need
    >>> for the drive to be fast, hence it isn't.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> THe drives id is
    >>> WD5000AAVS-00ZTBO or perhaps
    >>> WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0
    >>>
    >>> One theread here says
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/slow-write-speeds-wd-500gb-drive-t4048173.html
    >>>
    >>> "although its reading speeds seem normal (around 50-60 MB/
    >>> s), its write speeds were shockingly low (around 10 MB/s,"
    >>>
    >>> The read speed seems sonsistant with my benchmark (60mb/s) not sure about
    >>> the write speed, it wasnot given in the bencmark I did.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Here
    >>> http://reviews.cnet.com/internal-hard-drives/wd-caviar-green-wd5000aavs/4507-9998_7-33181708.html
    >>>
    >>> It gives speed of 300 300 MBps 300 MBps 300 MBpsMBps which seems very
    >>> fast, but it;s not the full drive ID.
    >>>
    >>> I will have to do some more searching.

    >> HDTune doesn't use the file system when benchmarking. For example,
    >> if you had a Linux EXT3 disk plugged into your Windows computer,
    >> Windows couldn't see any of the partitions, but yet, HDTune
    >> could benchmark it. That's because HDTune accesses the device
    >> at the block level, and not through a file system.
    >>
    >> The payware version of HDTune supports write benchmarking.
    >> While the free version just does read benchmarks (non-destructive).

    >
    > Yes I can get a bit confused about all this stuff, I think these file
    > systems and partitions
    > are somewhat artifical constructs, I think ultimately at the lowerst level
    > you just tell the drive
    > to read or write a particular 'chuck' of data, the correct terminology may
    > be block, I'am
    > not sure. Although it seems you can have blocks of various sizes.
    >
    > I get confused about track and cylinder block sector etc..
    > It seems as the drive size increases it is the number of cylinders which
    > increases.
    > I am finding this program very useful, but I just realised itis a fre trial
    > and I onlyhave 9 days
    > left!!!
    >
    > http://disk-monitor.com/
    >
    >
    > I can see from it the number of cyliners gores up from about 10,000, to
    > 30,000
    > to 50,000 on my 80, 250 and 500 GB drives respectively, the number of tracks
    > and
    > sector remains the same. I don't see how the number of cylinders can be so
    > high unless the drive
    > has about 20 to 100 platters, but maybe they can? I seem some images of some
    > with about 10
    > platters.
    >
    >> Write speed at the file system level can be slow on a modern
    >> disk, due to 4KB internal sectors plus 512e emulation. That's
    >> where the alignment of the partition, with respect to 4KB
    >> boundaries comes into play. I've tried to fix that by hand
    >> (doing alignment in Linux), but never succeeded in ending
    >> up with something I could actually use. (Always some piece of
    >> software complaining about something...)
    >>

    >
    > So does the drive phyically read 4kb when the system tells it to read a 512
    > byte sector?
    >
    > I remember at one time in my first job I was supposed to write driver for a
    > disk drive
    > after I had written a printer driver, but I just could not understand thier
    > descriptions of blocks
    > and records etc so they gave up trying to explain it to me, which is pitty
    > as I would have liked
    > to do that. I prehaps should have just got on with it and figured itout as I
    > went along, I often find the
    > explaination seems more complicated than the reality, once you know how it
    > works.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Linux is capable of reporting the internal sector type used.
    >> The fdisk command would show something like this, if you
    >> have a disk with 4KB internal sectors, but providing 512
    >> byte emulation suitable for usage with older OSes (so-called 512e).
    >>
    >> Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 512 bytes
    >>
    >> This article shows an example of fdisk output. The line of
    >> interest, is sandwiched in the blurb when fdisk starts.
    >> In this example, the disk shows 512 / 512 and no emulation
    >> of sector size is involved.
    >>
    >> http://lwn.net/Articles/377895/
    >>
    >> So that's an "excuse" for a modern disk to be slow. I've seen
    >> some peculiar behavior on my 500GB disks, whereas older
    >> smaller disks are much more predictable. The older disks
    >> are slow, because, well, they're slow. Whereas the more
    >> modern disks are fast under some circumstances (HDTune),
    >> and not in others (the real world).
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > I just noticed that on this page it seems to have the 500GB drive
    > which I reported here as WD5000AAVS-00ZTB0
    > On the page there is a Western Digital Caviar RE2-GP
    > WD5000AACS,SATA/300,500 GB,16 MB Cache
    >
    > Which is a fairly similar name, AAVS versus AACS and the speed is 62.10mb/s
    > which is slightly faster than the 250gb drive
    > Samsung SpinPoint P SP2514N,UltraATA/133,250 GB,8 MB Cache
    > Which comes in at 58mb/s (v 62.1mb/s) so slightly faster, which is fine and
    > the
    > 250 gb drive was noticably faster than the old drive, which I am currently
    > using.
    >
    > So if I can make the 5000gb drive bootable I should be fine. (as long as it
    > lasts more
    > than a couple of months!!). I sometime wonder if there was a problem with
    > that
    > disc cloning program I used which caused problems when the drive filled up
    > becuase
    > the problem occured so soon after using it.
    >
    > It willl be lot worse if the same happens on the 500GB drive as it will take
    > me longer to fill
    > it!!
    >
    > I might even try doing the partitioning and formatting by hand so to speak
    > using DOS.
    > It does not matter if it does not work as I can always redo it. So basicaly
    > just make the partition
    > format them and copy the stuff acrosss manually. I might learn more that
    > way, even if it just to
    > learn it does not work!!!
    >


    CHS (Cylinder-Head-Sector) is obsolete.

    The actual geometry, bears little resemblance to those numbers.

    For example, my 500GB drive has one platter, two heads (one on
    either side of the platter). Whereas the geometry has a
    ridiculously high value for head count.

    The actual layout of the platter is zoned, so the amount
    of data per track is variable. You can see the zoning,
    in the stair-step benchmark curve for the drive.

    *******

    The drive, when it reads, it holds the read in a cache. It could
    well read the entire track, and cache it. If the read command
    calls for 512 bytes, that much will be transferred out of the
    cache. The excess information might be considered "read-ahead",
    so it's possible the next command will go faster because the
    data is already in drive cache memory.

    On a write, that's where the 512e emulation comes in. There may need
    to be a fractional write, at the end of an operation. The drive
    can do a read-modify-write for that 4K sector. The drive knows
    it can only deal in 4KB sectors. And if 512 byte emulation is
    present, then it might have to read 4KB worth, change 512 bytes of
    it with the info it just got for the write, then write out the
    newly modified 4KB sector again. Doing those operations, slows
    the drive down. And especially, if clusters (~32KB size on FAT32)
    are not aligned on 4KB boundaries.

    I've tried fixing that (for example, using the Linux tricks to
    prepare a partition), but all I can remember is it caused
    nothing but problems, and I had to undo it again.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Nov 2, 2012
    #13
  14. R. Giggs.

    R. Giggs. Guest

    >> Which is a fairly similar name, AAVS versus AACS and the speed is
    >> 62.10mb/s
    >> which is slightly faster than the 250gb drive
    >> Samsung SpinPoint P SP2514N,UltraATA/133,250 GB,8 MB Cache
    >> Which comes in at 58mb/s (v 62.1mb/s) so slightly faster, which is fine
    >> and the
    >> 250 gb drive was noticably faster than the old drive, which I am
    >> currently using.
    >>
    >> So if I can make the 5000gb drive bootable I should be fine. (as long as
    >> it lasts more
    >> than a couple of months!!). I sometime wonder if there was a problem with
    >> that
    >> disc cloning program I used which caused problems when the drive filled
    >> up becuase
    >> the problem occured so soon after using it.
    >>
    >> It willl be lot worse if the same happens on the 500GB drive as it will
    >> take me longer to fill
    >> it!!
    >>
    >> I might even try doing the partitioning and formatting by hand so to
    >> speak using DOS.
    >> It does not matter if it does not work as I can always redo it. So
    >> basicaly just make the partition
    >> format them and copy the stuff acrosss manually. I might learn more that
    >> way, even if it just to
    >> learn it does not work!!!
    >>

    >
    > CHS (Cylinder-Head-Sector) is obsolete.
    >
    > The actual geometry, bears little resemblance to those numbers.
    >
    > For example, my 500GB drive has one platter, two heads (one on
    > either side of the platter). Whereas the geometry has a
    > ridiculously high value for head count.
    >
    > The actual layout of the platter is zoned, so the amount
    > of data per track is variable. You can see the zoning,
    > in the stair-step benchmark curve for the drive.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > The drive, when it reads, it holds the read in a cache. It could
    > well read the entire track, and cache it. If the read command
    > calls for 512 bytes, that much will be transferred out of the
    > cache. The excess information might be considered "read-ahead",
    > so it's possible the next command will go faster because the
    > data is already in drive cache memory.
    >
    > On a write, that's where the 512e emulation comes in. There may need
    > to be a fractional write, at the end of an operation. The drive
    > can do a read-modify-write for that 4K sector. The drive knows
    > it can only deal in 4KB sectors. And if 512 byte emulation is
    > present, then it might have to read 4KB worth, change 512 bytes of
    > it with the info it just got for the write, then write out the
    > newly modified 4KB sector again. Doing those operations, slows
    > the drive down. And especially, if clusters (~32KB size on FAT32)
    > are not aligned on 4KB boundaries.
    >
    > I've tried fixing that (for example, using the Linux tricks to
    > prepare a partition), but all I can remember is it caused
    > nothing but problems, and I had to undo it again.
    >
    > Paul


    Seems there is a lot more to drives than a lot of people realise. One of the
    biggest
    problems is small files as opposed to big files. I used to play poker quite
    a lot and
    the poker program would store a small hand history file for each hand.
    Problem was there
    were hundreds of thousands of them, on some days I could easily play about
    1,000 hands!!
    It causes a real problem when it comes to things like virus scans and copies
    and backups because
    it always grinds to a halt when it hits that huge pile of small files of all
    stored in files of usually 1kb or 2kb.
    They later moved to storing a whole session or days worth of hands in a
    file, which was a
    vast improvement, from the copying and backup perspective, although someone
    more
    difficult to find aparticular hand. I don't play poker much now so I have
    archieved all the hands off
    my computer to stop them causing problems.

    Anyhow I will have a go at cloning onto my 500 gig drive soon so I will
    have two bootable drives soon.
    However haveing two drives does cause problems unless I regularly reclone.
     
    R. Giggs., Nov 2, 2012
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
  2. Me/PDX

    internal drive vs external drive

    Me/PDX, Jan 21, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    624
    Otter
    Jan 22, 2007
  3. HangaS
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,004
    HangaS
    Apr 19, 2007
  4. dcpearso
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,020
    dcpearso
    Mar 23, 2008
  5. R. Giggs.

    Cloning so a SATA drive, boting form a SATA drive?

    R. Giggs., Nov 7, 2012, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,271
    R. Giggs.
    Nov 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page