I can't believe Seagate did this to us! at DVinfo.net

Stephen Armour · December 3rd, 2007, 07:49 PM

I am posting this here, as many are doing HD stuff and have Seagate Barracuda drives in their RAIDS.

This may be old news to some, but I just stumbled across it and immediately confirmed it with the Seagate PDF, then like any of you would have done, immediately yanked out the jumpers off all the drives and confirmed that it does indeed limit I/O!

Though the 1.5Gbps to 3.0 GBps shouldn't make a big dif, it does and it did. I would suggest you try it after checking it out yourself. On the jumper block there should be NO jumpers for 3.0 Gbps. There is on all mine and that's true apparently of ALL SEAGATE BARRACUDAS!:

http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100452348b.pdf

I seriously couldn't believe it, but the proof is in the use. It seems to somehow affect the cache and for scrolling in the timelines, that's crucial.

What the heck is going on in their heads?

Stephen Armour · December 3rd, 2007, 07:55 PM

Just so you know, one two drive RAID jumped from a max (I couldn't figure out why the heck it was so slow!) of 69MBps, to 130MBps after the data was in the cache!

That is nothing to sneeze at and maybe could explain sometimes why Intel has been getting some much flack for having "slow RAIDs".

Bill Ravens · December 4th, 2007, 08:52 AM

Many people still have SATA 150's in their system. Is the jumper necessary to make a SATA 3.0 work in a SATA 1.5?

Stephen Armour · December 4th, 2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Many people still have SATA 150's in their system. Is the jumper necessary to make a SATA 3.0 work in a SATA 1.5?

I'm not sure I have the answer to that. It really seems the jumper is only to identify the drive as a Generation 1 or 2.

I didn't mind Seagate putting on the jumper, but DID mind them not bothering to tell me about it. On paper, 1.5Gbps would seem to be more than enough to cover the 105MBps many of these drives are capable of, but as to actual performance, something appears to hit the cache when it's jumpered.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on this? I removed the jumpers and immediately noticed a difference in both my RAID and eSATA. It would seem anyone with a 3.0Gbps capable system could possibly benefit.

Anybody reading this post have more info on this?

Earl Thurston · December 7th, 2007, 01:34 PM

Although SATA 3.0 is backwards compatible with SATA 1.5, some older SATA 1.5 controllers can't cope with 3.0 drives. So, Seagate likely installs the jumper by default to minimize support calls and unnecessary returns.

Stephen Armour · December 7th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Thurston

Although SATA 3.0 is backwards compatible with SATA 1.5, some older SATA 1.5 controllers can't cope with 3.0 drives. So, Seagate likely installs the jumper by default to minimize support calls and unnecessary returns.

I'm sure that's the case. I just wish they'd make it more clear, like maybe a sticker on their OEM drives?

C'est la vie...

December 3rd, 2007, 07:49 PM	#1
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	If you use Seagate drives, read this! I am posting this here, as many are doing HD stuff and have Seagate Barracuda drives in their RAIDS. This may be old news to some, but I just stumbled across it and immediately confirmed it with the Seagate PDF, then like any of you would have done, immediately yanked out the jumpers off all the drives and confirmed that it does indeed limit I/O! Though the 1.5Gbps to 3.0 GBps shouldn't make a big dif, it does and it did. I would suggest you try it after checking it out yourself. On the jumper block there should be NO jumpers for 3.0 Gbps. There is on all mine and that's true apparently of ALL SEAGATE BARRACUDAS!: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100452348b.pdf I seriously couldn't believe it, but the proof is in the use. It seems to somehow affect the cache and for scrolling in the timelines, that's crucial. What the heck is going on in their heads? __________________ http://lightinaction.org "All in the view of the LION" Last edited by Stephen Armour; December 4th, 2007 at 06:33 AM. Reason: change title

December 3rd, 2007, 07:55 PM	#2
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	Just so you know, one two drive RAID jumped from a max (I couldn't figure out why the heck it was so slow!) of 69MBps, to 130MBps after the data was in the cache! That is nothing to sneeze at and maybe could explain sometimes why Intel has been getting some much flack for having "slow RAIDs". __________________ http://lightinaction.org "All in the view of the LION"

December 7th, 2007, 01:34 PM	#5
Earl Thurston Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Burnaby & Maple Ridge BC Posts: 289	Although SATA 3.0 is backwards compatible with SATA 1.5, some older SATA 1.5 controllers can't cope with 3.0 drives. So, Seagate likely installs the jumper by default to minimize support calls and unnecessary returns. __________________ Earl R. Thurston, Stargate Connections Inc. Made with GY-HD100: The Container Adventures: The Rescue

December 4th, 2007, 08:52 AM	#3
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Many people still have SATA 150's in their system. Is the jumper necessary to make a SATA 3.0 work in a SATA 1.5?