SATA question

[Ivan Gyurdiev]

>
> You're seeing the similar messages that I do, the controllers seem to 
> be recognised as 3Gb/s but the drives are either reporting or being 
> recognised as 133MB/s
>
> in my case the drives (WDC WD2500KS )are *not* PATA drivers with 
> on-board SATA bridge chips, how about yours?
Well, I think this is a SATA drive..
WDC WD2000JS-55MHB0
>
>> hdparm -I says udma6 is being used.
>> Testing my old drive, with this new SATA II one shows very similar 
>> performance,  near 60MB/s (via hdparm -Tt). Is this unusual? I would 
>> expect some kind of improvement...
>
> What does hdparm -T show? If it shows above 1.5Gb/s then at least your 
> physical interface is doing the SATA II speed to the drives,
/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   2260 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1129.27 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  176 MB in  3.03 seconds =  58.07 MB/sec

/dev/hda:
 Timing cached reads:   2228 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1113.55 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  176 MB in  3.00 seconds =  58.60 MB/sec

7200 RPM, 8 MB cache.
It's nice to know my SATA II drive is so much superior :)
>
> so in my case the interface between motherboard and disk electronics 
> is 37 times the speed of the interface between disk electronics and 
> disk surface, sata II's 3Gb/s speed is irrelevant, if only I had NCQ 
> that could make a difference ..
How does NCQ make a difference?
Also, jgarzik's webpage says: "Nvidia has released docs on nforce4 under 
NDA".
Do you know if there's work in progress to implement NCQ for that chipset?