T60 SATA Hard Drive Compatibility Issue

[fanqimeng]

Hi there. I have got a T60 with a old 80GB hard drive and I want to have it updated. However, the compitibility issue confused me. There are 2 kinds of SATA configuration S150 and S300. I am not quite sure about which one is supported by my T60 or both of them can be used. Does anyone know the detail? And what are the differences between these two?

[crazyfrog]

T60 supports both S150 and S300, but S300 hdd will only work in S150 mode.

Want to know more about S150 and S300? click here.

[fanqimeng]

Thanks. I've got another question. It seems that are different thickness options. Most of them are 9.5mm, but some are 12.5mm. Are they compatible? I was wondering which one is for my T60.

[qviri]

The 12.5 mm will not fit in a T60. 9.5 mm is fine.

[jhkaska]

Does anyone know if this Seagate 320 gig dirve will work OK in a T60P? Thanks

SEAGATE Momentus 7200.3 ST9320421AS 320GB SATA 7200 RPM 16MB Buffer Mobile Hard Drive Bulk

[qviri]

I am not aware of someone using specifically this drive, but I see no reason it wouldn't work in its specifications.

[hellosailor]

jh, if you're looking at the Seagate Scorpio series?

So am I. I asked WD if their shock protection system would play nicely with a Lenovo, and they said they have no idea. (I chided them for that, they OUGHT to know.)

They look like competitive drives. Since the real sustained transfer rates off the drives are limited by the system, I can't see any reason to use the faster drive (7200rpm) when the real transfer rate isn't going to be any faster, and the burst rate will be filled by the on-board RAM. I'm thinking the lower speed, lower power consumption, cheaper drive is the way to go.

[qviri]

Since the real sustained transfer rates off the drives are limited by the system

What makes you say that? The slower version of SATA has a maximum effective sustained rate of 150 megabytes per second*, and to my knowledge no notebook hard drive exceeds that speed in sustained transfers yet.


* 1.5 gigabits per second, 1.2 gigabits after overhead, 1000 megabits = 150 megabytes.

[hellosailor]

"to my knowledge no notebook hard drive exceeds that speed in sustained transfers yet. "

Yeah, there's a 7200rpm WD Scorpio rated at 300 instead of 150.

Doesn't matter when the notebooks can't eat the data at 150 in the first place. A bottleneck is still a bottleneck.

[qviri]

Okay, if the bottleneck is not in the drive (which I think is incorrect for sustained transfers from the platters) or the SATA interface, then where is it?

[hellosailor]

Seriously, the bottleneck is in the computer.

Whether it is in the SATA interface, the drive subsystem of the motherboard, the data transfer (DMA or otherwise), I don't know. Since neither one of us can control ANY of those things, just say "the computer can't handle it" and leave it at that.

The bottom line, is that these computers, can't handle faster data at sustained rates, and there's nothing we can do about it. Except replace them.

That's the way it has been with computers and hard drives for a VERY LONG TIME now. IDE, SCSI, ATA, all developed drives with faster sustained rates than any computer could use, and it took time for systems to catch up. Nothing new here, they keep selling drives to folks who are impressed by higher numbers.

[qviri]

I guess this person who upgraded his hard drive and saw a marked increase in performance confirmed by a synthetic benchmark was just seeing things, then? And what of this person who achieved yet higher result with the same laptop?

[jhkaska]

Thanks for the responses. I think that I'll continue to shop for the Seagate Momentus 320 gig at 7200 RPM. ZipZoom Fly had them in over the weekend last week at $161 but sold out in two days. Now their price is up to $179 when they get them restocked. The price is considerably higher most other places so I'll wait.

[hellosailor]

qv, I can't read his results without joining another forum. I have no idea what you mean by a "synthetic" benchmark, benchmarks are all equally artificial or not. How meaningful they are, or aren't, is another story older than computers.

If he got real world transfers, in excess of the buffer size, then he got something that worked. From what I've read elsewhere, 150/vs/300 transfer speeds are still a moot point.

You'll note that "KevinM"s chart shows BURST RATE, not sustained transfer rate, and that I was referring very specifically and clearly to sustained transfer rates, not burst rates. His data are totally irrelevant here, as as "burst rate" transfers in general.

[qviri]

qv, I can't read his results without joining another forum.

I'll transcribe, then:

Hitachi HTS541612J9SA00 5400 rpm 120 GB: transfer rate minimum 8 MB/s, maximum 47.5 MB/s, average 34.0 MB/s, access time 17.6 ms, burst rate 53.5 MB/s
Hitach HTS722016K9S 7200 rpm 160 GB: transfer rate minimum 26.6 MB/s, maximum 57.0 MB/s, average 46.6 MB/s, access time 14.9 ms, burst rate 73.2 MB/s
Hitachi HTS722020K9S 7200 rpm 200 GB: transfer rate minimum 30.4 MB/s, maximum 63.1 MB/s, average 51.1 MB/s, access time 15.0 ms, burst rate 72.5 MB/s

These are all using the same hardware, a Dell XPS M1330.

As you can see, different drives offer different transfer speeds, both in terms of burst (from cache, I am guessing) and sustained transfers. This means the rest of the computer cannot be the bottleneck, at least not up to 70 MB/s, and a newer/faster drive will give you more speed.

I have no idea what you mean by a "synthetic" benchmark, benchmarks are all equally artificial or not.

I meant that a raw speed measurement on reading a series of sectors is less "real world" than, for example, timing Windows or Photoshop start-up time.

From what I've read elsewhere, 150/vs/300 transfer speeds are still a moot point.

That is correct. But different drives within 1.5 Gb/s or 3.0 Gb/s SATA interface speed classes are not a moot point.

You'll note that "KevinM"s chart shows BURST RATE, not sustained transfer rate, and that I was referring very specifically and clearly to sustained transfer rates, not burst rates. His data are totally irrelevant here, as as "burst rate" transfers in general.

The chart shows sustained speeds across the drive. You'll note that the maximum speed reached on the chart (63.1 MB/s) is lower than the burst rate specified in the box (72.5 MB/s).

[EvilH]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I don't wanna get in trouble for starting another.

The 100gb 7k200 drive in my T60 just doesn't cut it space wise these days and I have been thinking of upping the space to a 320gb 7k200. Is there a list of drives that are compatible with the APS on my thinkpad? I know some drives itself support it but I have also heard that the thinkpads have a seperate chip that can have any hard drive park the heads as long as the drive understands the signal. Any help would be awesome.

...and hellosailor the computer is not the bottleneck concerning drive transfer rates. The drive itself simply can not provide data. No hard disk on the market aside from Velociraptors or high end SAS drives can saturate a SATA300 link and no laptop drive around can saturate a SATA150 (though they are getting really close).

[Mike1960]

Hi All

Do you know if I put inside ( R61 ) HDD Fujitsu - mhz2320bh - 320GB, 5400rpm, SATA II are working like SATA 300 or like SATA 150 ?

Thanks

Mike

PS. I want silent, cooler and more space in my notebook.

[Bwadd]

My vote is for the KR200, easy install and super fast, night and day to stock WD 80G drive...