Re: [t13] 48-bit LBA: Purpose of ID Word 86, bit 10 (vs ID 83, bit 10)

[Gilles Molli�]

Title: Message

You could want to use the ability of transfering more than 256 sectors at a time with a <HDD 128GB too. Is there such a draw back in performance for you te prefer using LBA28 below 128GB limit on >HDD 128GB ?   Gilles Molli�   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 16:55 Subject: RE: [t13] 48-bit LBA: Purpose of ID Word 86, bit 10 (vs ID 83, bit 10) Jeff, you are right in that there is no specific "requirement" for both bits to be set, and you see by Maxtor's feedback that the idea of both bits being set is the de-facto "recommended setting" is not shared throughout the industry.   I agree that to use advanced features (NCQ, Streaming, etc) you do not have to have a >128GB drive.  But those features aside, existing drivers may just say "do 28-bit commands" if the capacity, or for that matter the current requested LBA range, is below the 28-bit limit just because the 28-bit commands are more "efficient".  Sure, if you want to use these new features the drive has to be 48-bit capable.  I still use the 28-bit commands for basic R/W requests below the 128GB limit.   BTW, just in case anyone is confused by the different values that Jeff and I are using to represent the 28-bit capacity limit, the true limit is ~137GB (or 128*(1024^3)) but rounding to 128 is an accepted alternative too because of dividing out 1024^3.   So Steve, in light of (some?) drivers requiring both bits set, do you think Maxtor would be interested in setting both in your drives now?  Would there be any resistance to the ATA-8 spec requiring both be set?  This second question is posed to everyone with an opinion.   TTFN, MKE.