All-generic-ide option
 

Hi,
I installed a Core 2 Duo E6420/Intel 965 matx (I don't exactly remember the model..) pc with the "linux all-generic-ide" option , used at the boot screen of the installation dvd due to lack of the SATA controller's driver. Will this option make the system slow (or not functional at all)?

this is the lspci's output:

00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 Memory Controller Hub (rev 02)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02)
00:03.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 HECI Controller (rev 02)
00:03.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 PT IDER Controller (rev 02)
00:03.3 Serial controller: Intel Corporation 82Q963/Q965 KT Controller (rev 02)
00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82566DM Gigabit Network Connection (rev 02)
00:1a.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI #4 (rev 02)
00:1a.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI #5 (rev 02)
00:1a.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB2 EHCI #2 (rev 02)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) HD Audio Controller (rev 02)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02)
00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02)
00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 3 (rev 02)
00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 4 (rev 02)
00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 5 (rev 02)
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI #1 (rev 02)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI #2 (rev 02)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI #3 (rev 02)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB2 EHCI #1 (rev 02)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge (rev f2)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801HO (ICH8DO) LPC Interface Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801HR/HO/HH (ICH8R/DO/DH) 6 port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02)
02:00.0 IDE interface: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Unknown device 6101 (rev b1)
06:03.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments TSB43AB22/A IEEE-1394a-2000 Controller (PHY/Link)

Probably not you can check the speed you are getting on your hard drive by using the hdparm program with a command similar to the below as root changing for the actual drive letter yours gets assigned.

The second one is the important one in the 50s is normal for a SATA drive in the 40s means it is running at the old regular ATA 100/133 speeds.

Using such notions may lead to some minor performance loss but I never noticed any of that. But do you really need it anymore ? For most recent distributions (Fedora 6/7, Debian 4, Suse 10.2, etc) the option simply isn't required any longer.

Yes, i needed it... I saw in many forums that with the Intel 965 Chipset there's no problem with Fedora 6/7, while for Centos 5 is necessary to put this "option"..
I will try to test the disk speed...

Thanks for your immediate reply..

Are you sure? I installed CentOS5 on a system that has an ASUS P5B mobo (P965 too) about a month ago; I may be wrong but I really don't think the option was needed - unless your mobo has a different IDE controller (not JMicron like mine), then it's a different story, of course.

Hi jay73,
I saw in many forums that the option is required in most of 965-based mobo (for the P5B too)to proceed with the Centos Installation...Whatever it seems that the disk goes very fast :) ...
Here is the hdparm -Tt /dev/sda's output:
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 13964 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6996.43 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 216 MB in 3.01 seconds = 71.67 MB/sec

and so..i think that kernel uses the right driver..or else it would be inexplicable..

That option is required with older kernels that did not have the best of support for the controller the newer kernels now do not require it anymore. BTW what is that drive you have a SATA 300? I was thinking of upgrading mine but was not sure if the speed up would be worth it looking at yours could well be though ...

Happy

[root@localhost ~]# hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 1164 MB in 2.00 seconds = 581.88 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 220 MB in 3.02 seconds = 72.82 MB/sec


Seagate .10 series running in sata1 mode, on a Asus A8n5x. No special stuff done. Just normal install on FC5/F7. Drive is about a year(?) old(320gig, 88%full,ext3).

Well, those would be the normal speeds for a SATA disk. Mine (Western Digital) usually score either 65 or 80 MB/s, depending on the port they are connected to (which is pretty confusing considering the disks are perfectly identical). So I guess your experiences bear out mine: the boot argument may have a small impact but it's really negligible.

@HappyTux,

whether SATA300 will really be much faster depends pretty much on what you have right now. I had a Maxtor PATA 7200RPM with 16MB cache in this computer until not to long ago and it really wasn't all that much slower than the SATA disks. Anyway, if you're interested, SATA drives have become quite affordable.

Hmm mine is a 400gb SATA Seagate .8 series I was/still am running a torrent when I did the test so that could have had an effect on the results, just tried again and got 60 so it probably is. I have been thinking I would like to go for one of the 750gb's if they would ever get under $200 ...

Ok,
then i can be sure that the kernel runs the correct driver..(or not??)

Thank you for infos...

Oh yeah it is running the correct driver for the install otherwise you would not be able to access the drive.

Ok..
Thanks for the support.