Thread

CF AztecMonsters have landed

CF AztecMonsters have landed 68k 158 posts Oct 12, 2011 — Jan 21, 2014

#61 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 04:10

ojfd, I stand corrected. I'd RTFM if I had a manual, but they're hard to find for 15 year old software. dialogue for the device driver, not IDE.

Told you so [

] ]'>

Give me the address where to upload, and you can have it. ~3MB

Or buy a hard copy - they show up on ebone from time to time. Very good reading.

Hang on, do you have Aztec Monster installed? If so, please post the dialogue screenshot, I'd like to see which options are grayed out compared to screenshot I posted well above.

#62 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 04:29

Hang on, do you have Aztec Monster installed? If so, please post the dialogue screenshot, I'd like to see which options are grayed out compared to screenshot I posted well above.

Follow up - Hard Disk Toolkit is known to revert to very conservative driver settings when dealing with "unsupported" drives. I had to set these manually many times in the past.

In any case:

1. "Auto bad block reallocation" slows the drive down slightly (almost unnoticable).

2. "Verify vrites" slows the drive down enormously.

3. "Synchronize cache on shutdown" only needed on host adapters.

4. "Allow disconnect" is essential.

5. "Blind transfers" is essential.

6. "Disable parity" should be checked, if not grayed out.

7. "Command cueing OK" should be checked, if not grayed out and if it is known that Aztec Monster supports this feature.

#63 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 05:25

I do not have an aztec monster. I have an acard 7720u SCSI->IDE and a fast compact flash card, so what I have to say is of limited value to this thread. I'm posting here because I see a similar performance limit with my setup, and suspect a common cause.

The default HDT driver settings for the above are:

I attempted these settings, without any effect on the poor perf results:

I also tried upping the max chunk size to 65535, (and a few other numbers) without any benefit. This (non aztec) flash drive, so far, has a max transfer speed of half a meg/sec on my SE/30.

#64 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 05:41

I do not have an aztec monster. I have an acard 7720u SCSI->IDE and a fast compact flash card, so what I have to say is of limited value to this thread. I'm posting here because I see a similar performance limit with my setup, and suspect a common cause.

So do I, but the cause has to be isolated first.

The default HDT driver settings for the above are:

Just what I thought...

I attempted these settings, without any effect on the poor perf results:
also tried upping the max chunk size to 65535, (and a few other numbers) without any benefit. This (non aztec) flash drive, so far,has a max transfer speed of half a meg/sec on my SE/30.

You really have to try ATTO benchmarking utility and take measurements before and after changes, to be certain. Maybe the test has to be done on faster Mac, just to be sure that it's not the SE/30's SCSI controller, that's bottleneck here.

One also has to remember what the differences between SCSI and IDE are, namely, SCSI devices have a lot of circuitry, that does their "housekeeping" and buffers that optimize data flow from drive to buss and back, whereas IDE does not have this circuitry - that's why IDE drives were always cheaper back in the day. I suspect that AztecMonster and Acard are simple SCSI to IDE command translators, hence the poor performance, but this is where my knowledge of such devices ends.

#65 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 06:11

By the way, here are the test results of PQI IDE Disk On Module on Pentium II MoBo under DOS I did some time ago. I replaced the boot drive with Flash drive on that specific system and also was surprised to see the performance loss.

Pay attention on how access times increase with increased Block Size.

#66 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 23:45

ojfd, I stand corrected. I'd RTFM if I had amanual, but they're hard to find for 15 year old software. dialogue for

the device driver, not IDE.

Click to expand...

Give me the address where to upload, and you can have it. ~3MB

Or buy a hard copy - they show up on ebone from time to time. Very good reading.

'IamSpartacus'

Check this link.

http://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=160732#p160732

http://themacarchive.net/

Know how tu use HL?

"Uploads" folder

#67 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 - 23:46

My compact flash perf issues have been fixed (though not explained). When I initialize the drive with HDT, it has a 500k/sec bottleneck. When I initialize it with a patched version of Apple HD SC Setup 7.3.5 (located here: ftp://grijan.cjb.net:21000/macintosh/Software/Utilities/hd_sc_setup_735-patched.sea.bin), transfer speeds triple to 1700k/sec. Details in this thread - http://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17229

If this hasn't been tried with the aztecs yet, I'd recommend it.

#68 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 00:08

My compact flash perf issues have been fixed (though not explained). When I initialize the drive with HDT, it has a 500k/sec bottleneck. When I initialize it with a patched version of Apple HD SC Setup 7.3.5 (located here:

ftp://grijan.cjb.net:21000/macintosh/Software/Utilities/hd_sc_setup_735-patched.sea.bin),

transfer speeds triple to 1700k/sec.

Aha! I suspected something similar, but we haven't arrived there yet.. (one step at the time)

It's nice that you've got it working in a "quick and dirty" way, but don't jump to conclusions too soon.

Hard Disk Toolkit is very powerfull application, but as I mentioned before, it defaults to very conservative settings on drives that it "doesn't know".

Those of you, who don't want to deal with technical issues will be well served by patched Apple's HD SC Setup.

Those, wishing to try to squeeze out maximum of your flash drive's performance, have to have a look at

drive's MODE PAGES by using "FWB Configure" application, change those settings, run ATTO tests, change settings again....more tests....etc.

Manuals and tools are upped (see my previous post)

.

Good luck!

#69 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 00:15

Aha! I suspected something similar, but we haven't arrived there yet.. (one step at the time)

Why aren't we there yet? And why must one take a step at a time? Seems clear to me that used the patched driver eliminates the bottleneck in a matter of seconds.

Or are you suggesting that by tweaking FWB's driver further, one could expect even greater performance from it? If so, what are the specifics of accomplishing that?

#70 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 00:40

Ack, hold on guys. The drive is very unstable for any purpose besides benchmarking. Investigating further...

#71 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 00:49

Why aren't we there yet?

Because someone has other jobs too.

And why must one take a step at a time?

To make sure that some noob (this is not personal, btw) doesn't come back to this forum bad mouthing drive manufacturers or applications after his quick button pressing exercise and major @#ck-up afterwards.

Seriously, if you have to ask these questions, you probably do not know how FWB apps work.

Or are you suggesting that by tweaking FWB's driver further, one could expect even greater performance from it?

Maybe. Maybe not. Try it. I have no horse in this race.

If so, what are the specifics of accomplishing that?

Driver + Mode pages settings. Please, consult manual, it's all there.

#72 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 01:15

I have no horse in this race.

For not having a horse, you do pretty well with the advice! ;D

My advice... Get a horse!

#73 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 04:11

Although this FAQ deals with v.2.0, much of that applies to later versions of FWB as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/19970127043809/http://www.fwb.com/software/support/tech_support/pefaq2.html

'Spartacus', what OS are you using? Care to list all Extensions and CPs that load on your machine?

EDIT - I see that you're on 7.5..

From FWB FAQ as of 1997:

# SCSI problems associated with SCSI Manager 4.3.

If you are having SCSI problems and are running System 7.5, FWB (because of reported problems which have been experienced by many users , developers and Mac magazines like MacWeek) recommends that users should disable the SCSI Manager 4.3 Extension. The problems are widespread and are occurring with all SCSI vendors and software drivers. Apple is working resolving these issues, in the meantime disable this extension. The SCSI Manager built into the Macintosh ROM does not seem to exhibit the same problems and is fine. It might be advisable to upgrade your system software to System 7.5.1 as this uses a newer version of the SCSI Manager 4.3 extension that does not appear to exhibit the same problems as its predecessor.

#74 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 05:49

I'm using a vanilla install of 7.5.5, which lacks a scsi manager extension. Just to recap:

Initialize the CF card with HDT = slow but functional

Initialize the CF card with patched Apple HD SC Setup = fast but hard system crash within seconds of writing data to it. Afterwards, system will not boot. I have to reformat the CF card in my SLR to revive. Needless to say, I don't recommend this approach.

#75 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 - 07:09

Good to see some new life here. Glad you tuned in.

Some more food for thoughts...
1. Have you configured / optimised your driver?

2. How does Aztec monster behave? Like SCSI drive or like IDE drive?

(1) I have not configured the driver yet. Still using default parameters.

(2) The Aztec presents a SCSI device.

Image0.tif

#76 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 10:26

Perhaps it would help to try another benchmark utility too.

Absolutely. I took QuickBench, available as part of Intech HD SpeedTools, and did benchmark one of my CF cards w/ AztecMonster again:

Image 6.tif

For reference, here is the FWB benchmark result, taken 4 weeks ago:

The results for both sustained read and sustained write are more or less the same. Random read and random write are comparable, too. Please note that the FWB diagram has a linear x-axis, whereas the QuickBench diagram has a logarithmic one.

But guess what? Following JDW's thought I just bought the Intech HD SpeedTools and re-initialized the CF card with HD SpeedTools, thus deleting the FWB driver with the HDST driver. Look at that:Image 5.tif

Lessons learned so far:

• Benchmarks made with FWB HDT and with Intech QuickBench show similar results. So presumably it's not the benchmark tool itself introducing the problem.

• CF card shows dramatically better read performance when formatted with Intech HDST. Regarding write performance, both FWB HDT and Intech HDST deliver the same, disappointing results.

For comparison, here are the QuickBench results of a Quantum Fireball 1280S real spinning platter hard disk.Image 7.tif

#77 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 11:13

Guys,

I still do not understand why you continiosly refuse to use ATTO for benchmarking and waste time trying out other sulutions

__insert picture of me banging head agaist the wall here__

Did you read what was said about ATTO tool at xlr8yourmac?

The ATTO Tools utility has a benchmarking function, which does not use the system disk cache (although it has an option to do so). Bypassing the system disk cache gives a better indication of the card and drive performance, eliminating the effect of a large cache setting in the memory control panel - which inflates scores in other benchmarks.

Please, use it and post the results. Only then, by excluding system disk cache from test, we can talk about drive's performance issues.

-----------

P.S. Udo, your tif images do not load on my machine. Any idea why?

#78 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 11:43

I still do not understand why you continiosly refuse to use ATTO for benchmarking and waste time trying out other sulutions

Simple reason: The ATTO tools don't work on my SE/30 with System 7.1. According to their README file the require System 7.5.2 or later, and although they come as fat binaries, they crash on System 7.1.Image 8.tif

#79 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 11:58

The TIFF attachments seem to make problems for some comrades, sorry. From my side they looked O.K. Here comes a 2nd approach, this time with PNG attachments.

So we go again.

Perhaps it would help to try another benchmark utility too.

Absolutely. I took QuickBench, available as part of Intech HD SpeedTools, and did benchmark one of my CF cards w/ AztecMonster again:

For reference, here is the FWB benchmark result, taken 4 weeks ago:

Lessons learned so far:

• Benchmarks made with FWB HDT and with Intech QuickBench show similar results. So presumably it's not the benchmark tool itself introducing the problem.

• CF card shows dramatically better read performance when formatted with Intech HDST. Regarding write performance, both FWB HDT and Intech HDST deliver the same, disappointing results.

For comparison, here are the QuickBench results of a Quantum Fireball 1280S real spinning platter hard disk.

#80 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 12:37

Simple reason: The ATTO tools don't work on my SE/30 with System 7.1. According to their README file the require System 7.5.2 or later, and although they come as fat binaries, they crash on System 7

Oops!

7.5.2 , I see...(But that blurb about PCI machines in Read Me file is incorrect - it works on my Q605.)

I've just sent you an older ATTO test utility. Let's hope, that it works on your SE/30 and also bypasses system disk cache. Try it.

#81 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 - 17:36

Let's hope, that it works on your SE/30 and also bypasses system disk cache.

QuickBench claims that it bypasses the system disk cache as well.

FWIW, here's the Kingston SSD I benchmarked last month. But this time, it has been initialized with HDST instead of HDT:

And here, for reference, is the FWB benchmark for the same SSD, taken 4 weeks ago:

Again, the same findings as above:

• HDST enhances the read performance to 1.8 MB/sec.

• Write performance is still limited to 407 KB/sec.

#82 Thu, 24 Nov 2011 - 21:14

Since this thread is focused on flash drive solutions for our vintage Macs, I felt this would be appropriate.

Last night I commented on OWC's blog about their Black Friday 2011 specials. I noticed that they had specials on all their SATA SSDs but none on their "Legacy" IDE/ATA edition SSDs that are for vintage Macs. Having recently acquired some old PB G3 Wallstreets, I also commented about discounts on batteries too. Today, Grant at OWC kindly replied that he would take my words under consideration.

So as to not let this chance die (for truly, I am only one man asking about this), I wanted to post here to encourage those of you interested to reply in kind. Specifically, if you've ever pondered putting a true SSD, not just a CF card, in your vintage Mac, now is the time to seek out a discount and do it! I would therefore strongly encourage you to post a comment on OWC's blog if you would be encouraged to buy an OWC SSD if they offered a good enough discount on them.

Here's the Black Friday Blog:

http://blog.macsales.com/12693-holiday-deals-from-owc/comment-page-1#comment-49219

And here are the 3 product pages I mentioned in my comment on the OWC blog...

40GB Legacy 2.5" SSD:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDMLP040/

PB G3 Wallstreet PRAM Battery:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/PRAMPBG3WS/

PB G3 Wallstreet Main Battery:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/BAPLLIWSRS/

And while pondering whether or not to post a comment there, keep in mind, "Ask and ye shall receive!"

Thanks!

#83 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 - 19:07

The CF AztecMonster is built around an Acard SCSI-IDE bridge, the same one that is used in the AEC-7720U. So I took an AEC-7720U, a Toshiba MK3021GAS 2.5" HDD and my G3 Powermac running MacOS 9.2 and got the following results:

And here's the AztecMonster with a CF card, attached to the same Powermac as above:

Finally, a real SCSI HDD (Quantum Fireball 1280S) not needing the Acard SCSI-IDE bridge chip:

Powermac G3 Findings:

• In combination with an Acard SCSI-IDE bridge, a real HDD and a CF card show similar performance. Not the same, but similar.

• In both cases, the write performance reaches the same level as read performance. But it needs large transfer sizes to do so.

• Without the Acard SCSI-IDE bridge, a normal SCSI disk behaves more or less comparable to the CF card.

#84 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 - 19:40

Just for fun, can you toss an IDE-CF adapter onto the AEC-7720U? (nothing with any fancy chips, just nice and passive)

It will likely not give better results, but just for the sake of curiosity and to deal with any questions about how the AztecMonster itself actually does stack against a normal SCSI-IDE adapter. With a passive CF-IDE dealy in the 7720U it *should* have the same results as the AztecMonster; since tests are going on atm if you have the stuff it might be neat.

#85 Wed, 14 Dec 2011 - 14:16

< Bump > Neat stuff, I'd like to know if anything new has come up?

Are these adapters proving useful in real world applications? :?:

#86 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 - 17:56

Just for fun, can you toss an IDE-CF adapter onto the AEC-7720U? (nothing with any fancy chips, just nice and passive)It will likely not give better results, but just for the sake of curiosity and to deal with any questions about how the AztecMonster itself actually does stack against a normal SCSI-IDE adapter. With a passive CF-IDE dealy in the 7720U it *should* have the same results as the AztecMonster; since tests are going on atm if you have the stuff it might be neat.

Did that. And since I was flashing the AEC-7720U to the Mac-specific firmware version 3.7m anyway, I took the AztecMonster, held it against the Acard firmware flashing tool and guess what? The firmware flashing tool identified the AztecMonster firmware as Acard version 3.7m. So from a firmware point of view, the AztecMonster is a 7720U running firmware version v3.7m.

Here are the measurements, done with my SE/30. IMHO, they are indistinguishable.

Screen Shot 2011-12-18 at 6.39.08 PM.png

#87 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 - 18:16

Here's another comparison: AEC-7720U with CF card versus spinning platter HD (Toshiba MK3021GAS). Both the CF card and the HD have been initialized with Intech HD SpeedTools v3.6.

Screen Shot 2011-12-18 at 6.40.19 PM.png

The HD, hooked behind the AEC-7720U, does not perform better than a CF card. For me, the performance bottleneck seems to be the SCSI-IDE bridge. What do you think?

#88 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 - 18:47

For me, the performance bottleneck seems to be the SCSI-IDEbridge. What do you think?

Udo.Keller,

You tested AEC-7720U vs. regular HD in SE/30 and in your G3 so far. How about repeating the same test in one of your Quadras? Q605 will do. I'd love to see how 53C96 performs under same conditions.

#89 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 - 23:35

I had several AztecMonsters on order with Artmix and he never sent them, so I got a refund.

Looking at the board design, it looks like a pretty simple layout (not that I'm an EE by any means)

Also, the chip used is a standard ACARD ARC-760B, which if it could be sourced relatively cheaply, we (i.e. the retro Mac community) could probably come up with a design for it and have it fabbed over here, though who knows if it would be at a reasonable price.

I'd be interested in looking into it if there were any enthusiasm! The scarcity of drives for these old machines will only get worse as time goes on.

#90 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 - 00:33

IMHO, they are indistinguishable.

As are those bars in your benchmark chart.

Once again, folks, please use something other than the bar or line graph on the SE/30. PLEASE! I like the bar and line graphics, but I like understanding what each bar and line mean even more. At the very least, use Photoshop to mark which is which.

Thanks!