Sorry to hear that.

1) Did you get the FW PC card with a TI chipset?

2) Did you try looking at the PCI latency timer on the PCMCIA interface? (Read the first post on this thread. When you're done there, read Luteman's posts, starting with post # 729. Your problem may be similar to his.)

If increasing PCI latency for your FW controller card doesn't help, then it may simply be your FW interface hardware or drivers. At that point, it's down to a call to their Tech Support, and if that doesn't help, well, then it may be time for an RMA.

ORIGINAL: artha
1) yes, my laptop have TI FireWire chipset

If I remember, you said your laptop already has a Firewire port with a TI chipset. Is that what you mean here? You need to be sure about which device you are looking at when you adjust PCI latency. Otherwise, you could be adjusting one device, while your interface is plugged into the other one, and so you will see no change.

ok. i made DPC LATENCY TESTS and....

1) when i haven't connected FireWire card - all bars are green and everything is ok...

2) when i connect my firewire card, open sequencer... and open project... look what is happened:

http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpclatencyjz4.jpg

sounds is clean.... clik.... clean .... click

sometimes one minute is clean, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter...

i disable most devices. wan,lan,usb and other... this same effect...

i set toshiba firebus latency to few options, also no effect, clicks still are....

any idea ?

ok. i found - this is problem with toshiba sattelite a100 - fan problem. when fan switch on - latency, when switch off - latency.

so....

in bios we haven't options.
speedfan isn't usable, because this fan is control by ACPI.
i heard about notebook hardware utility, but.... i found a way (still in test) -> using toshiba power saver change profile to FULL POWER.
then we have CPU CONTROL METHOD work in AUTO mode, fan is always on and i don't seen any max peaks in dpc latency. but like i said.... i'm still testing this. but sure is much better :-)

carlos (losguy) I just wanted to first say that you are truly blessed,also God wanted me to tell you thanks for your first scripture quote here it is!!!!

losguy
Gold Member





Posts: 4932
Joined: 12/18/2003
From: The Great White North (MN, USA)
Status: offline quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquis42
I've used the Serillel converters to use PATA drives on SATA channels, but never the other way around. I suppose it would work, though there could be issues since what you're trying to "convert" is actually the controller and not the drive. The only issue I had was that since it was the boot drive on the SATA channel, I had to go into the BIOS and add a 1 second IDE pre-delay so the disk detection wasn't flaky.

Interesting, thanks. I suppose disk detection of a CD/RW connected to a SATA channel could be even flakier? Or would it not matter unless it's a boot drive?

quote:


BTW, your post above about RAID 5 is inaccurate. You do not need 5 disks to go RAID 5, you only need 3.

Thanks, I stand corrected. So the good news is, from where I sit, I only need one more SATA drive (Seagate Barracuda V) and a RAID 5 SATA controller card, and I'm in!! (So, where can I get a good RAID 5 SATA card, quick and cheap?)

For everyone's benefit (and mine too, I suppose), here's a technical explanation of RAID levels. How to read their diagrams: the individual disk drives are the big multi-shaded cylinders along the bottom. The big cylinders are depicted as stacks of little shaded cylinders. The little cylinders are the sequential data chunks that the RAID controller breaks the incoming data stream into and spreads across the drives. (This is on disk writes, of course. On reads, the RAID controller grabs the sequential chunks and reassembles them back into an intact stream.) The key to understanding the differences between the RAID levels is to look at the different ways that the chunks are numbered.

I think I remember now why I said five disks instead of three for RAID 5. It has something to do with hitting an optimum between increased performance and drive requirements. As you keep adding drives (N increases), at some point you will reach the need for more than one parity drive to keep track of all the added parity bits. (If this were not true, then one parity drive would be enough for an infinite number of data drives, which is absurd.) I vaguely recall that the number of drives where you get the two-parity-drive hit is six, so for optimal parity drive utilization you go back to five drives total. Of course, only the RAID 3 configuration uses a physical parity drive, so this tradeoff probably only applies to RAID 3.

< Message edited by losguy -- 3/26/2004 12:03:06 PM >

_____________________________

Psalm 30:12 (then click the "C" on the left)
On God's Kingdom and its Relevance
Fast Forward... to the End of Days