??? Bill Hacker wrote: > Rusty Nejdl wrote: >>> Does SATA300, but has the same "feature" as the OP's Seagate drive: >>> a small jumper that limits the drive to SATA150 unless removed. >>> See below PDF. >>> >>> http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e2af99f4fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US >>> >>> http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371h.pdf >>> >>> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks! Like Aryeh, I missed the jumper. I'll test this out tonight >> when >> I get home. >> >> Rusty >> > BTW - in a recent test of 2.5" high-capacity HDD, it was noted that SATA > required significantly more power than PATA. Well 'significant' to a > laptop on battery, anyway. > Yes, this is because the SATA physical interface is always transmitting a signal, i.e. it has 100% duty cycle, whereas PATA tri-states when it's not active and typically has a 10-20% duty cycle even when active. It's a well understood issue in the SATA world, and drives and controllers are starting to appear on the market that address it. > Given that single-drive setups seldom stress even UDMA 133 over the > course of reasonable time spans, does anyone know if: > > A) SATA 300 needs yet-again more power than SATA 150? Yes, it's a higher frequency so it draws more power. > > B) running down-shifted to SATA 150 might actually be a better plan > anyway in some circumstances? A little better, but still not as good as being able to put the signal to an idle state. ScottReceived on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 14:59:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC