Do some chipsets (SiI 3132 vs. Intel ICH9) run certain drives at UDMA/100
vs. UDMA/133?
I have several 750GB WD drives (exact make/model) and the ones on the
intel chipset show up as:
[ 1.407321] ata3.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max UDMA/133
[ 1.407409] ata3.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32)
[ 1.408300] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133
The ones on the SiI 3132 chipset show up as:
[ 9.604413] ata11: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 0)
[ 9.619024] ata11.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max UDMA/133
[ 9.619111] ata11.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32)
[ 9.620029] ata11.00: configured for UDMA/100
If they are both 3.0 Gbps, are they both the same speed even though one is
configured for a slower speed than the other?
Or is it the case that the SiI 3132 does not support AHCI and that is the
reason for the difference? Does it make any difference in performance?
SiI Controller:
02:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3132 Serial ATA Raid
II Controller (rev 01)
Intel Controller:
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801IR/IO/IH (ICH9R/DO/DH) 6
port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02)
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Do some chipsets (SiI 3132 vs. Intel ICH9) run certain drives at
> UDMA/100 vs. UDMA/133?
On native SATA drives and controllers, the UDMA speed really has no
effect. At the low level there are just frames going back and forth on
the link at either 1.5 or 3.0 Gbps so the UDMA speed doesn't really
control anything. If there is a PATA bridge involved (either internal or
external to the drive) then this can affect the speed on the PATA bus,
but that won't be the case here (NCQ support wouldn't be possible in
that case).
>
> I have several 750GB WD drives (exact make/model) and the ones on the
> intel chipset show up as:
>
> [ 1.407321] ata3.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max
> UDMA/133
> [ 1.407409] ata3.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth
> 31/32)
> [ 1.408300] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133
>
> The ones on the SiI 3132 chipset show up as:
>
> [ 9.604413] ata11: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 0)
> [ 9.619024] ata11.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max
> UDMA/133
> [ 9.619111] ata11.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth
> 31/32)
> [ 9.620029] ata11.00: configured for UDMA/100
>
> If they are both 3.0 Gbps, are they both the same speed even though one
> is configured for a slower speed than the other?
Yes.
>
> Or is it the case that the SiI 3132 does not support AHCI and that is
> the reason for the difference? Does it make any difference in performance?
3132 is not an AHCI controller but it still supports most or all of the
same features. (AHCI is not a feature set, it's a particular hardware
interface.)
>
> SiI Controller:
> 02:00.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3132 Serial ATA
> Raid II Controller (rev 01)
>
> Intel Controller:
> 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801IR/IO/IH (ICH9R/DO/DH) 6
> port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02)
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Hello.
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Do some chipsets (SiI 3132 vs. Intel ICH9) run certain drives at
> UDMA/100 vs. UDMA/133?
Intel ICH chipsets never supported UDMA/133.
> I have several 750GB WD drives (exact make/model) and the ones on the
> intel chipset show up as:
>
> [ 1.407321] ata3.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max
> UDMA/133
> [ 1.407409] ata3.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth
> 31/32)
> [ 1.408300] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133
I'm *very* surprised to see that on ICH9. Oh wait, that's SATA
controller, not PATA! Then I don't know...
> The ones on the SiI 3132 chipset show up as:
>
> [ 9.604413] ata11: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 0)
> [ 9.619024] ata11.00: ATA-7: WDC WD7500AAKS-00RBA0, 30.04G30, max
> UDMA/133
> [ 9.619111] ata11.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ
> (depth 31/32)
> [ 9.620029] ata11.00: configured for UDMA/100
>
> If they are both 3.0 Gbps, are they both the same speed even though
> one is configured for a slower speed than the other?
I'd think so.
> Or is it the case that the SiI 3132 does not support AHCI and that is
> the reason for the difference? Does it make any difference in
> performance?
Hardly -- if these are true SATA controllers.
MBR, Sergei