From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <14ec7b180606291403n66dbbc02y242600363e47c5dc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:03:36 -0600
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchovski@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] Any one going to change to sata disks?
In-Reply-To: <746635ea52d91a5d72ff8cf8b44993b7@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <43033963bac21bb13ae4c93be93157c5@coraid.com>
	<746635ea52d91a5d72ff8cf8b44993b7@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 708dce68-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

here's my recent experience with sata:

i had two disks i wanted to use, big 250gb chunks of hunk. if one was
plugged in by itself it will appear as sdC0, if i plugged in a second
one none of the two will be recognized, not even to boot from. one had
to keep switching them from one slot to the other and fiddling with
the bios just to get them both to be visible to the os. if anything
was plugged in to the IDE slots, including just a cdrom, the sata
disks (or one disk, rather) would be delegated to sdE0...

with two sata disks plugged in as sdC0 and sdD0, the bandwidth to one
would be 5 times slower than the bandwidth to the other. same test as
jmk's would complete in 2-3 seconds on sdC0, and 11-12 seconds on
sdD0...