Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-21 Thread Oliver Fromme
Patrick M. Hausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Tyan barebone on my desk that is based on the ServerWorks HT1000 chipset. It features 4 SATA connectors and 4 hot plug drive bays. I installed FreeBSD on the system with the BIOS settings as set by the manufacturer. This includes

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-21 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Hi, all! On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 02:36:48PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Are the disk sizes exactly the same in both cases? Please provide dmesg output from the 2nd case (native SATA). Good point ;-) But ... P-ATA emulation: atapci0: ServerWorks HT1000 SATA150 controller port

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-21 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Patrick M. Hausen wrote this message on Mon, May 21, 2007 at 15:18 +0200: Hi, all! On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 02:36:48PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Are the disk sizes exactly the same in both cases? Please provide dmesg output from the 2nd case (native SATA). Good point ;-) But ...

Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Hi, all! I have a Tyan barebone on my desk that is based on the ServerWorks HT1000 chipset. It features 4 SATA connectors and 4 hot plug drive bays. I installed FreeBSD on the system with the BIOS settings as set by the manufacturer. This includes setting the SATA mode to P-ATA emulation. The

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread Brian A. Seklecki
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:04 +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: to UDMA33. I figure, they can safely be ignored? Only if there isn't some massive performance degradation. ports/benchmarks/bonie++ can tell you that. As for the boot loader and your gmirror volumes; it's hard to say. It's

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread Tom Evans
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:57 -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:04 +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: to UDMA33. I figure, they can safely be ignored? Only if there isn't some massive performance degradation. ports/benchmarks/bonie++ can tell you that. As for the

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread Brian A. Seklecki
right which I never understood absolute device number. you can choose to do that in obsd/nbsd, but fbsd seems to psuedo magically do it. reminds me Solaris. ~BAS On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:25 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:57 -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread John Nielsen
On Friday 18 May 2007 11:34:52 am Brian A. Seklecki wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:25 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 10:57 -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote: On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:04 +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: to UDMA33. I figure, they can safely be ignored?

Re: Native SATA vs. PATA-emulation - difference?

2007-05-18 Thread Philipp Wuensche
Patrick M. Hausen wrote: The devices are probed by FreeBSD like this: server# dmesg | grep ata atapci0: ServerWorks HT1000 SATA150 controller port 0xc080-0xc087,0xc000-0xc003,0xbc00-0xbc07,0xb880-0xb883,0xb800-0xb80f mem 0xff3fe000-0xff3f irq 11 at device 14.0 on pci1 ata2: ATA