×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Faulty Marvell Chips Delay SATA 6G Launch

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the speed-comes-to-him-who-waits dept.

Data Storage 90

Vigile writes "The SATA 6G standard offers more than simply a faster 6.0 Gb/s data throughput speed, to wit: improved NCQ support, better power management, and a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives. While modern-day, spindle-based hard drives struggle to keep up with SATA 3G speeds, modern SSDs are nearly saturating the existing standard, and a move to SATA 6G was welcome in the hardware community. It looks like that technology will be delayed, though. The only chip supporting the standard today, the Marvell 88SE9123, is having major issues. Motherboard vendors including ASUS and Gigabyte, which had planned on releasing SATA 6G technology using the chip on Intel Lynnfield platform motherboards later this summer, are having to remove the Marvell 88SE9123 and redesign their boards at the last minute due to significant speed and reliability issues."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

90 comments

Bike, nigga stole my bike!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696573)

adddriaaaaannnnnn

Interface speed only (1, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696575)

This is silly. Current hard drives can't even max out the speed of SATA-2. There's no need for faster interfaces just yet.

Re:Interface speed only (3, Informative)

Rayban (13436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696591)

... "modern SSDs are nearly saturating the existing standard" ...

Re:Interface speed only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696705)

*cough* port expanders *cough*

Re:Interface speed only (2, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697117)

*cough*Doesn't increase bandwidth*cough*

Re:Interface speed only (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697201)

*cough* Benadryl ...

Re:Interface speed only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28697491)

It will allow similar throughput on a per device basis for twice as many devices.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697889)

The AC is implying that one drive may only use ~80MB/s, but a four-port multiplier will saturate the bus. SSDs are not the only reason to push for increase bandwidth.

This may not be the case anymore, but I had thought support for port expanders on consumer grade chipsets were pretty poor.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697033)

I have yet to see an SSD that can constantly saturate a 3.0Gbps link, please show me some that do.

Re:Interface speed only (2, Interesting)

Chabo (880571) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697223)

TFA said "nearly saturating", but regardless...

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=24 [anandtech.com]

250MB/s is just below the theoretical limit of SATA 3Gb/s, which is 300MB/s. It's possible that there are still other bottlenecks beside the hard drive.

I also have seen SSD RAID benchmarks somewhere, but I don't remember where.

Re:Interface speed only (4, Informative)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697255)

Intel's X25-M [tomshardware.com] seems to perform 200 MB/s constant throughput. Granted that's "only" 2/3rds of the 3 Gbps that SATA 2 delievers, but the quote was "nearly saturate".

And if we're already at 2/3rds, that's a fairly compelling argument to upgrading. On laptops it can become an issue much quicker, as you usually only have 1 eSATA port, and port multipliers do not increase bandwidth. Hooking two X25-Ms onto a single eSATA 2 port can saturate it while doing non-random transfers easily but still have room left over on eSATA 3.

But if we're merely talking SSD in general, we can always point to Fusion-io ioDrive [tomshardware.com] which bottoms out at 429 MB/s.

Re:Interface speed only (4, Informative)

AllynM (600515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698891)

Most sequential throughput benches hit the drive with sequential requests, and are not multithreaded. You end up seeing throughput lower than the theoretical interface bandwidth because of the latency involved for each request. A queue depth of 2 or 4 will give an X25 enough heads up to truly saturate the bus. I've recorded as high as 285 MB/sec from an X25-M using an NCQ-capable benchmarking tool.

Also, don't forget SATA uses 8/10b encoding, so you have to account for that overhead as well when calculating theoretical maximum throughput. Doing the math, you'll find 285 comes to 95% of a 3 GB/sec SATA interface. That's way higher than 200 MB/sec and close enough to call saturated.

Allyn Malventano
Storage Editor, PC Perspective

Re:Interface speed only (2, Informative)

whowantscream (911883) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697345)

Fusion-IO has PCI-e cards that they claim sustain 570MB/s [fusionio.com] up to 1.5GBps [fusionio.com]

Can't boot from them, but there you go.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698825)

I looked at the Fusion-io cards a while ago, the speed is mind-blowing but the fact that it needs a driver made it an immediate no-go. Bootability is not the issue, it's all about compatibility. Why they can't make it appear as a plain old SATA or SCSI controller, I do not know, but more importantly I don't care, especially when you consider the asking price for these things. Even the cheapo Gigabyte I-Drive pretended to be a SATA disk (it literally had a SATA output connector). I'd be happy if this thing posed as a pair of SATA disks to be RAID-0'ed. In its current form it just seems like a half-baked idea. I'm really hoping they will clean it up in the next incarnation.

It seems they're releasing a "cheaper" version for so-called gamers, 80gb for ~$900. Four times the cost of an SSD, but four times the speed. I have to admit, at that price I might be willing to try one and see for myself if their drivers are worth a damn. I work with smallish high-churn databases, the kind of workload that eats spinning platters for breakfast. Something like this would be a godsend, as long as it's server-class reliable.

Re:Interface speed only (4, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697543)

Take a long hard think about this.

What manufacturer is going to make SATA SSD's that can saturate the fastest SATA port?

Sounds to me like a bad idea. Surely there are some tradeoffs between speed and some other also important metric. Ex, faster might mean larger erase block sizes.

It is likely that Intel could have made their product much faster, but without any benefit at all to doing so, they wouldn't.

This new SATA, while important, it sort of too-little-too-late. We need a much higher ceiling, and we need it yesterday.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698407)

"Sounds to me like a bad idea. Surely there are some tradeoffs between speed and some other also important metric. Ex, faster might mean larger erase block sizes."

But this has nearly no effect on reads, which is the majority of what most drives are doing. You want the fastest interface possible, we're talking about *flash memory* here.

There is no drawback to faster interfaces, your concerns are irrelevant since you're talking about engineering flaws and the immaturity of solid state, the interface is immaterial to such concerns.

Re:Interface speed only (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698939)

What manufacturer is going to make SATA SSD's that can saturate the fastest SATA port?

The same idiot manufacturers who deliver super-high sequential reads at the expense of everything else. There's a jumble of drives running off a particular J-Micron controller (or two :P), that deliver faster sequential reads than the Intel X25-E, but have random access times in the 50ms range (average). That's five times slower than a cheap 5400rpm notebook drive! They still sell like hotcakes because they're cheap, and we all know how much America loves cheap garbage. You could stick a SATA port out the side of a fresh turd, and if you price it low enough, some dumb fuck will buy it.

SATA 6G is too slow, yes, but the companies involved seem to be interested in controlling their steady income by keeping everyone on an upgrade treadmill. If they had given us 6G at the very start, they would not have been able to milk the industry over the last six years with these minor upgrades and feature enhancements. Look at Firewire, ignoring Apple's idiocy, it was a very fast external bus that was far ahead of its competitors in terms of performance, reliability and ease of use. It was so good that even the 800mbit upgrade is considered redundant, the old standard is "fast enough" for most uses.

Better get used to it though, SATA is the new bottleneck, and it will be for years to come. There's just no way around it. It took this long for people to finally ditch IDE, even if there were a new contender to leave SATA's generationally-challenged performance in the dust, the industry simply is not ready to change interfaces again.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699605)

Better get used to it though, SATA is the new bottleneck, and it will be for years to come. There's just no way around it.

You mean aside from faster storage topologies which exist for people who need them.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706025)

As a hard drive interconnect ?

Sure, you can RAID a bunch of drives in an external chassis and pipe the combined throughput over FC, but how many people do you know with an FC HBA in their gaming rig or media workstation ? Even ignoring the minor detail that an entry-level HBA costs more than most people's entire PCs, you simply cannot compare external vs internal storage solutions. Some of us just don't want another big noisy box under our desks. It's fine for a datacenter but certainly not for SOHO.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

megabeck42 (45659) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722217)

Only 1, and he did it because he could keep the loud drive cabinet in the basement and use the drives from his bedroom. It was decent gear, too, LSI PCI-E 4GBps card with two multimode transceivers to a JBOD cabinet in the basement.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700315)

I am not convinced that SATA600 is intentionally slow.

I think its more likely that when SATA600 was on the drawing board, that nobody predicted this new market.

Stupidity is more likely than malice.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699257)

Sounds to me like a bad idea. Surely there are some tradeoffs between speed and some other also important metric. Ex, faster might mean larger erase block sizes.

Progress is not made by people who concoct imaginary dangers over yonder hill, and then use them as an excuse not to set out at all.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699599)

Why? You didn't take a long hard think about it at all.

If you can't saturate the link with one drive, and the standard procedure is to hook one drive to one port, then why do we need something faster now?

Something faster is fine, would even help burst speeds, but its not something we 'need' nor was it 'needed' yesterday for anything other than some silly setup that was never designed to be fast in the first place ... i.e. using a port replicator on a laptop.

Re:Interface speed only (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700183)

If you can't saturate...

Cart before the horse. I can't saturate it because nobody is making drives that can.

I claim that it is no coincedence that SSD's, once performance became a comodity (thank you MTRON), quickly shot up from ~16MB/sec and leveled off at 200+MB/sec sequential read speeds. In this time there was no substantial technological breakthrough that made this possible, and we dont need one to go faster. What we need is a faster pipe.

As evidence of this fact, I will draw your attention to the future. Once SATA600 is standard on more that a few motherboards, one of the major SSD manufacturers will put out a drive that does 500+MB/sec, and the others will quickly follow.

Re:Interface speed only (2, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697941)

The only reason SSDs aren't capable of higher speeds is because the bus is not capable of more. There's no point making a controller capable of 2GB/s if you are only able to transfer at 300MB/s.

Build it and they will come... (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698681)

Beat me to it ;)

There is no way a manufacturer is going to produce a drive with Sata 2 specs that would exceed 300 Mb/sec. It would be a waste of money on their part (pearls before swine). Give a proper pipeline and room to breath and watch competition force the issue. ANY increase in pipeline is a good thing because the manufacturer's will move in to fill the pipe or lose out on the performance game.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698683)

"The only reason SSDs aren't capable of higher speeds is because the bus is not capable of more. There's no point making a controller capable of 2GB/s if you are only able to transfer at 300MB/s."

This is idiotic, every bus interface always has more bandwidth than most devices can take advantage of, the case was the same when we moved from ISA to PCI and then to PCIe (peripheral bus), from IDE to EIDE to ATA to SATA (hard disk bus).

Re:Interface speed only (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699305)

Even PCIe version 1 is highly capable - x8 cards are limited at 2GB/s theoretical, with version 2 doubling that, and version 3 will double it again.

Re:Interface speed only (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699917)

There are SSDs sold that connect using PCIe. OCZ and FusionIO have x4 units that run at over 500MB/s. FusionIO and PhotoFast have x8 units that run at over 1GB/s.

Regular HDDs saturate SATA 3.0Gbps links (2, Insightful)

this great guy (922511) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700933)

This lack of knowledge on /. is sickening. Not only a single SSD already almost saturates a SATA 3.0Gbps link (300MB/s with 8b-10b encoding), but even regular hard drives do. Transfers to/from the on-disk buffer chips are bottlenecked by the 300MB/s speed. And SATA enclosures placing multiple (3 or more) drives behind a SATA port multiplier also easily saturate SATA 3.0Gbps links (the sequential read speed of a 1TB Seagate 7200.11 is 120MB/s, so 3 of them do 360MB/s).

Re:Regular HDDs saturate SATA 3.0Gbps links (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 4 years ago | (#28701821)

This lack of knowledge on /. is sickening

That's because it's become a warren for sub-29 year olds who use bing.com as their SE of choice and actually brag about it :D.
[yawns/arches back] it's about time for my cuppa tea and afternoon nap.

Maybe they should stick... (3, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696621)

Faulty Marvell Chips...

Maybe they should stick to comic books.

Re:Maybe they should stick... (-1, Offtopic)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697043)

Maybe they should stick to comic books.

Too obvious. Every slashdotter worth his salt thought the same thing.

The trick is to use the Marvell/Marvel joke in a creative or more complicated way that surprises the reader.

Ex. Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier... they should redesign the spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips.

See, now I've included the obvious comic book reference, and taken it a step further with an up-to-date (current -- get it?) joke, thus giving it a bit of originality that may not have occurred to every single slashdotter. Note the subtle influence of the word "supplier" to hint at the AC/DC relationship. It's these word choices that really make a joke work.

Alternatively (get it?), you could get extra humor out of the situation by working in a reference to the Tesla/Einstein argument over power supply -- this plays to your audience, since those who get the reference will feel smug superiority over being part of the nerd elite.

So, you could end up with the following joke (which I find (a biased source, of course), much funnier than your obvious one-liner that appears to have been aimed at firstpostitude):

Well, that's their problem for using an unreliable supplier like Marvell... they should redesign their spec to work off batteries, so they could use DC chips. Hell, even 100 years ago Einstein knew better than to trust that other kind of current.

e that this last version also plays heavily on the AC-DC sexuality metaphor, and takes advantage of its subconscious action on the part of some of the readers.

To cut a long post short, please make a better effort next time... I'm sure you have it in you, and I, for one, welcome more truly funny posts on slashdot.

Re:Maybe they should stick... (4, Informative)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697219)

Um, Billy Batson would have you know it was Tesla and Edison, not Einstein, arguing over type of current.

Nice try.

Re:Maybe they should stick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28702051)

oh boy ! a new smaller version of an already rotten connector design
maybe 3M will come up with conductive SATA glue.

Listen, and understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696625)

That SATA chip is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your product is delayed.

Marvell announces total recall of faulty chip. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696909)

Give those people ERROR!

Re:Listen, and understand. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697637)

Unlike like their ethernet chip, which absolutely will stop on a 64bit machine with over 4GB.

Re:Listen, and understand. (1)

megabeck42 (45659) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722273)

Noone's surprised. Marvell's had a track record of faulty, ill-documented, or bug-plagued parts. Sometimes, I wonder why they still bother. I suppose, someone has to make Realtek look good.

Re:Listen, and understand. (1)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 4 years ago | (#28725861)

I know I'm a bit late to the Marvell bashing party, but I had to say something.

A couple years ago when Asus first started puting Marvell network chips on their boards, every single one that I saw (I or friends bought) had a faulty NIC. The symptom? It was slow...paaaaainfully slow...definitely not 1Gbps. More in the range of 10Kbps. I called up suppliers and Asus directly...they all said to RMA the motherboard, no DOA replacement. Joy. So, spend a stupid amount of time to remove the board, live without a running PC for 2 weeks (!) and pay $30 or more for shipping for a $20 solution (put in an add-on NIC).

No one wanted to act in good faith...I guess I'm the stupid one, I still buy their crap.

Don't Delay, Just Rename (4, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696629)

>> The only information we have gotten from anyone revolves around some hardware AND software issues that are preventing the SATA 6G speeds from actually reaching 6.0 Gb/s

Instead of delaying the launch, they could just rename the chip. SATA 5.5G for example.

Re:Don't Delay, Just Rename (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696905)

1. promote 6g product
2. rename to 5.5g product
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

Re:Don't Delay, Just Rename (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28698893)

Dammit.

I've got 12 2Tb SATA6 HD's here just waiting to be hooked up to a bus that can handle their speed!

Re:Don't Delay, Just Rename LOL!!!! (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700699)

ROTF, LMMFAO.... Made my day, neonprimetime...

That's really kewl....especially in light of the recent story about companies manipulating or avoiding or playing games with certain release numbers.

Re:Don't Delay, Just Rename (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28701077)

Instead of delaying the launch, they could just rename the chip. SATA 5.5G for example.

Or sell them to Apple.

Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (2, Funny)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696793)

I wonder if The Green Gobllin [marvel.com] had anything to do with it...

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (-1, Flamebait)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696827)

'Marvell' != 'Marvel'

For a bunch of so-called geeks, I'm surprised so many are missing that.

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (3, Funny)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696857)

Joke detection fail.

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697051)

Or perhaps joke fail. I sure didn't think it was hilarious.

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700575)

Or perhaps joke fail. I sure didn't think it was hilarious.

Your response is a common and erroneous defensive response.

Just because you did not find a joke to be funny does not mean it was not still a joke. Your post that marvel comics only has one 'L' was not a criticism of the humor in the joke, it was an attempt to correct a perceived error. If you knew it was a joke you would have known the error was intentional and would not have attempted to correct an error that was not really an error at all.

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28696873)

Whooooosh!

Re:Faulty Marvell Chips, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28697339)

gambit3, you of all people should be able to tell us that.

6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anyway (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28696897)

Even the 6G standard won't hold for high-end SSDs (which seem to be raid striped in one unit, AFAIK). The long-term solution for those are ones that connect via PCIe, so this doesn't seem to be that big a deal, really.

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (2, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697049)

The PCIe versions of SSDs I've see so far doesn't seem to support booting. That's a major crimp in their usefulness. Also, they're not all that useful in laptops.

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (2, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697165)

The PCIe versions of SSDs I've see so far doesn't seem to support booting. That's a major crimp in their usefulness.

True, but that's temporary. I've heard the next major crop of them coming out over the next quarter or so will be bootable. I certainly wouldn't buy one until they ARE bootable.

Also, they're not all that useful in laptops.

Laptops have PCIe connections available, too; that shouldn't be a problem.

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697083)

Nitpick:

I'll bet they implemented striping a different way than RAID. Since all they need to do is act like a standard hard drive to the machine, they can implement something faster and more specific to flash memory (since every optimization counts).

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697197)

Nitpick:

I'll bet they implemented striping a different way than RAID. Since all they need to do is act like a standard hard drive to the machine, they can implement something faster and more specific to flash memory (since every optimization counts).

Pedantic-Man(tm) Approved(tm)! :)

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28697421)

Whew, good.

Re:6G a stop-gap solution for high-end SSDs, anywa (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700055)

Are we really all the way back to hardcards?

I guess fads really do go in cycles.

This is surprising (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28697069)

To be bad enough that these low-end board shops would reject it this Marvell part must be truly heinous. Asus et al. usually don't hesitate to ship boards with badly flawed components. Cox talked about this [kerneltrap.org] a few years ago.

If you want good SATA avoid the third party chips these board makers integrate. Especially the RAID crap. Wait for Intel to build it into their regular chipsets.

Re:This is surprising (1)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 4 years ago | (#28697127)

I agree Marvell is garbage but it's not like "high-end" board shops (whoever you think those are) are above including shitty parts. My Intel desktop board (D975XBX2)'s primary SATA controller is Intel, the second group of four is powered by some Marvell piece of shit though... 88SE6145 I think. The 4 drives on the Intel chip have no problems. The 4 drives on the Marvell chip randomly reset and have generally poor performance.

nVidia nForce 4, Silicon Image, and JMicron (1)

JakFrost (139885) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699819)

I had a very bad experience with my old nVidia nForce4 Chipset [nvidia.com] motherboard RAID chip while using it and just recently found that none of the old or new drivers work correctly when the Intel X25-M 80GB SSD is plugged into the motherboard causing my Windows OS to freeze during boot-up when the driver is initialized or the RAID capability just doesn't work at all. I even wrote up an entire account of this problem in a few threads, one on nVidia's forum and another on HardOCP Forum to warn users about trying to use Intel SSDs with their older nForce4 hardware that I linked to below.

The Silicon Image 3114 PCI to SATA 1 controller chip [siliconimage.com] has serious issues also that caused it to drop my RAID-5 and destroy the 2 TB array. It has issues with PCI bus contention and also is incompatible with the Creative Labs X-Fi PCI sound card on the same bus causing audio stuttering and pops. A few people mentioned that the issue might be IRQ sharing but I tried the sound card in all different PCI slots with different IRQs and the problem was still there. Jet another bad experience with off-brand storage chips.

My current Asus P6T motherboard for Intel Core i7 with the JMicron JMB363 PCIe to SATA chip [jmicron.com] and JMicron JMB322 SATA 1 to 2 Port Multiplier chip [jmicron.com] are also having issues with the internal SATA ports where one of them is port-multiplied and if a hard drive and an LG Blu-Ray optical drive is connected at the same time to the internal ports the optical drive will randomly disappear and re-appear in the operating system.

So Marvell is not the one and only manufacturer of storage interconnect chips to have these problems. My experience is that pretty much all of them have issues to varying degrees driving users mad when they realize after purchasing the motherboard and trying to use these chips.

[H]ard|Forum > [H]ard|Ware > Data Storage Systems - The Hidden Cost of an SSD Upgrade (Intel SSD + nForce4 Chipset = No RAID! -> Upgrade) [hardforum.com]

[H]ard|Forum > [H]ard|Ware > Motherboards - nVidia nForce MediaShield 15.23, .25, .26 - Does Not Install! [hardforum.com]

NVIDIA Forums > nZone > Hardware > nForce Mobos > nVidia nForce MediaShield 15.23, .25, .26 - Does Not Install!, MediaShield installer does not install services, GUI, or files [nvidia.com]

OverclockersClub Forums Hardware Processors, Motherboards and Memory - Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi and Silicon Image 3114 on DFI SLI-DR [overclockersclub.com]

Well diddums for Marvell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28697519)

Well AMD's implementation is meant to be pretty good, demoing 590MB/s transfers earlier this year. Sadly that implementation is part of a southbridge coming out in Q1'10 (SB850) and the SB810 has been delayed further to H2'10.

Maybe AMD should have made a standalone SATA3 chip with a PCIe interface and made a few bob on the side.

Well, what did you expect from Marvell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28699323)

What would you expect from a company that has greed at its core from the top down. e.g. CEO lays off staff then takes pay bump [siliconbeat.com]

Third world upbringing and asian-american wife is a pretty much terminal combo as far as ones charity goes, and while I'm not saying it always takes a charitable person to do proper quality control and swallow the bitter pill of respins/delays/repairs when it is required, it certainly helps.

Anyone who expects a marvell product to be a quality one is off his rocker.

Marvell == suckage in Si form (3, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699409)

Honestly, Marvell chips have cost me more grief on Linux installs than all other vendors combined. If this gets mobo vendors to design out Marvell, then I say: "Grand!".

Re:Marvell == suckage in Si form (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700647)

Honestly, Marvell chips have cost me more grief on Linux installs than all other vendors combined. If this gets mobo vendors to design out Marvell, then I say: "Grand!".

The linux gigabit ethernet driver bites.

The current one - sky2 - frequently dies under heavy loads and seems to rely on an internal watchdog timer to kickstart it back to life within 60 seconds or so, making a gigabit nic no faster than a 10mbps nic on average.

The Marvell provided one - sk98lin - worked until recent kernels changed a couple of structure definitions - I manually tweaked it myself to get it up and running, but jumbo frames don't work (turn them on and it seems to lose any packet larger than the non-jumbo size of ~1500 bytes).

"Me too", not just Linux. (2, Insightful)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28701137)

I have to agree there. Marvell chips have given me nothing but grief, both in Windows and Linux, both network and ATA. They made me buy a SATA DVD writer to replace the fully functional PATA device, as well as a Silicon Image-based SATA controller to attach harddisks (couldn't use the Intel controller, because MSI still insists on placing the "good" SATA connectors under the GPU cooler).

All in all, I'm happy about anything bad happening to Marvell.

Powered eSATA? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28699675)

Anyone know if/when powered eSATA is supposed to come online? As in power and data in the same single cable?

It feels somewhat silly that I have two options with my 2½ eSATA/USB:
USB - single cable, low speed
eSATA - two cables, high speed

Might even result in some interesting new types of flash storage devices. HD speeds in USB key sizes.

Ho hum (1)

jspenguin1 (883588) | more than 4 years ago | (#28700107)

Wake me up when SATA speeds pass SAS.

Wait, that's never going to happen. By the time 6Gbit SATA takes off, SAS will be at 12Gbit.

Not that I'm dissing SATA -- It's cool to be able to connect a boatload of SATA disks to a SAS expander for a (relatively) cheap SAN with half a petabyte of storage.

"a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives" (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 4 years ago | (#28703417)

a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives.

For the love of heaven, WHY?

Re:"a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives" (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#28703731)

a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives.

For the love of heaven, WHY?

Probably because the SATA power connector plus SATA data connectors are so physically large, that you can get the PATA drives in a smaller form factor? (PATA drives use a 44-pin ZIF socket that's really small and low profile. It's also a touch fragile...).

I wish I could find SSDs easily in a PATA connector - 1.8" drives usually have PATA interfaces and I'd like to upgrade one of my computers to SSD. BUt the Intel ones are SATA only, and the only ones I find ohterwise are some noname chinese ones on eBay...

Re:"a new connector to support 1.8-inch drives" (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28703841)

GP beat me to it. If the power connector is too big, I'd say use a smaller power connector. I mean it's nearly 3X the size of the data connector and it's usually only using 4 of those pins (photo). [hardwarezone.com] Or maybe they could stack the connectors on top of each other to save horizontal space, they'd be well under 1cm tall stacked.

All you'd need is a different adapter to use the small-connector drives in existing desktop PCs. Changing the data connector seems totally uncalled for.

Marvell (1)

xmvince (959575) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707851)

Asus p6t deluxe has the WORST marvell SAS controllers and WORST ethernet i've ever seen.. not sure if its the marvell hardware or asus's drivers but they suck big time. took me half a year to realize my $2,000 i7 was running like shit because of these drivers that I had to disable in the BIOS.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...