Classic Mac Hardware (Troubleshooting, Upgrading, & Modifying) > Storage Technologies

The Definitive EVB-002 Guide to Adding Large Hard Drives/SSDs (Power Mac G4 DA)

<< < (2/4) > >>

FBz:
Testing the EVB-002-3 “Bribge” SSD adapters in the G3 B&W and the G4 AGP…
BUT NOW confirming DieHard’s findings with the Digital Audio machine.
Just tested here with a G4 733 MHz DA.

AND YES, the DIGITAL AUDIO 533 MHz broke the 128 GB barrier
long before the Quicksilver model 2002 Rev. B boards.


  Above graphic used with permission of EveryMac.com and gleaned
  from their always helpful “Ultimate Mac Comparison” feature via...
  https://everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/
  [Huge thanks to EveryMac.com.]

AND have not actually tested an SSD in any of the following benchmark scenarios
(yet / see below) but these results are from IDE/PATA and SATA drives (with the
Bribge in that latter instance). Certainly warrants the application of possibly one
LARGE SSD in the Digital Audio machines with a Bribge - - - now that we know
that the DA’s are capable of greater than 128 GB drives?

Appears that the Western Digital drive(s) have a slight edge over the Seagates?


First the single, solo IDE / PATA drives:
Seagate Barracuda IV - 40 GB


Western Digital - 320 GB


AND now that latter instance…

A Seagate Barracuda (SATA) - 750 GB (w/ Bribge)
One partition @128 GB yielded 124.01 GB with remainder
yielding 574.56 GB. (698.57 GB total after formatting.)



The Dual Drive Route with Bribge and a Seagate
(Jumpered as "Master w/ non-ATA compatible slave” on the the bottom).
And a jumpered SATA slave drive (with Bribge) on top.

Seagate - 1 TB SATA


Western Digital - 1 TB SATA


Could’ve just as easily tested the 1 TB SATA drives solo in the DA…
but who needs more graphics / benchmarks? The point here is that
with a Bribge you can utilize the larger SATA drives… PLUS SSDs.

Ahh hell, here’s QuickBench results from a 128 GB Inland SSD.

Just a bit better than the Western Digital SATA, but zero noise
& no added heat - PLUS benefit of reduced PSU strain & drain.

FBz:
Digital Audio 128GB HD Limitation Conundrum

Not entirely ready here to throw the baby out with the bathwater, with thanks to mopar300m and his comments & questions about “What happens to certain partitions available under OS 9 when I boot into OS X  just disappearing on my Digital Audio?”. He also mentioned the fact that anything above and beyond 128 GB (on any partition / master or slave drive) simply “vaporized” and went un-seen and not mounted when booting into any version of OS X. (Similar experience here with the G3 B&W / with Tiger, Panther and Jaguar.)

Ding-ding-ding!
Or perhaps, Bong!

Thanks to many others that may have already realized some of the inherent folly here
and for simply not mentioning the proverbial “fly in the ointment / sand in the vaseline”.

--- Quote ---“AND YES, the DIGITAL AUDIO 533 MHz broke the 128 GB barrier
long before the Quicksilver model 2002 Rev. B boards.” - Big Dumb Guy (Me)
--- End quote ---

Well yes, no - and maybe.
Well… maybe not really.

Seems that as long as you format and partition larger hard drives (above 128 GB) with Drive Setup 2.1 under OS 9… you CAN have oodles of partitions and usable space above and beyond 128 GB - or just one big honking space under OS 9. Now here’s the catch / caveat / heartbreaker. (You reading along here IIO?)

Just as soon as any version of OS X rears its’ head into the mix, installed on any of the primary (master) hard drive’s partition(s) - or on the secondary (slave) drive AND BOOTED… well then, ANY partition on either drive above the 128 GB limit… POOF! becomes invisible and does not mount under OS X. Nice, ehh? G-O-N-E.

*You may notice that none of the examples in the above, previously posted “confirmation” post ran or used any example or result from a boot of OS X? Well, that wasn’t intentionally omitted… but testing went on here for FOUR solid days (at least) and between mopar300m, DieHard and myself… AND for even a longer period of time (since the beginning of this month). Borgmac just volunteered yesterday to begin testing too.

Works GREAT under and with only OS 9. BUT OS X does not play well.
AND again, fine if you wish your Digital Audio to be OS 9 - ONLY.
Bring on those larger than 128 GB BIG DRIVES!

Throwing in the towel.
(And maybe a little workaround.)

Yesterday, finally applied mopar300m’s observations and three-partitioned a 480 GB Crucial SSD with Drive Setup 2.1. (Attached to a Bribge EVB-002-03 adapter / master.) Assigned the first partition 41 GB, the 2nd partition 41 GB and left the 3rd partition with the remainder of 367 GB. (Which, as will later, painfully be shown here… OS X only recognized 47.92 GB.)

After partitioning… 40.04 + 40.04 + 47.92 = 128 (Per OS X Tiger)
OS 9 sees things just a bit differently. Here’s that 480 GB Crucial SSD.



All three partitions mounted and present. Redundant “Get Info” graphic below from OS 9:



This approach allowed OS X (Tiger) to acknowledge and mount that third partition AND
possibly allow someone to test whether there’s actually 367 GB of usable space.

OR ONLY… the 47.92 GB “Capacity” as noted below.
(Although it does also state 367 GB “Available”.)



Now, here’s an idea. Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to the remaining fourth
partition? OS 9 would see it and mount it and OS X simply would not. In this way,
that space would theoretically still be available to OS 9 for file writes, storage, etc.?

This may pertain to IIO’s old questions here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5955.msg44520.html#msg44520

There’s always the concern about dragging / copying items from OS X back to OS 9
but far less concern about the opposite. AND OS X would be mounted and available
to “receive” from a proposed OS 9 fourth “Ghost Partition”… unseen by OS X?

Anyway, onward…

OS 9’s Disk First Aid reported all as: “appears to be OK”.
Which is different - compared to OS X’s DFA results.
(That graphic below this one.)




This graphic below, is from a Sunday test, and OS X’s First Aid
reported similar results as for the 367 GB partition referenced above.


That’s a 320 GB Western Digital PATA HD seen as 128 GB (not as 320 GB) under OS X Tiger, above.
The 173 GB partition on that HD only equaled 3 GB Capacity - while also reporting 173.1 GB Available?


If OS X cannot see or mount a proposed Fourth “Ghost Partition”…
then no “Invalid number of allocation blocks” problem. Or “Volume
needs repair / task reported failure on exit” for a herein proposed
3rd partition & any larger than (outside the 128 GB) fourth partition.

That’s 42.6 GB OS 9, 42.6 GB OS X, 42.6 GB empty space and
the remaining space beyond 128 GB for the “Ghost Partition”.

There was a problem with the above-configured Sunday dual-HD
setup. The partition entitled “Space” previously contained an OS 9
installation, installed from the same install disk as the WDC Mac
OS 9.2.2 partition. It would not boot from the WDC Mac OS 9.2.2
partition - no matter how approached. The machine would always
default boot to the OS 9 (which once occupied the “Space” partition).

No problems between WDC’s 9.2 and DieHard’s “prototype” 9.2.

Had no problems running OS 9 as a solo OS on any SSD in a DA
- but I always prefer having another OS (and HD?) present as well
in other machines here. So, while the 128 GB DA limitation might
not actually be broken here, this does offer an option. And with the
added benefits of cooler running, better energy efficiency and a
quieter operation... SSD.

Thus, an invitation to all Apple DA owners to test & challenge
these findings AND possibly to break that 128 GB barrier with
their Digital Audio machines.

Otherwise, go get yourself a “B” boarded Quicksilver.
OR have a bootable OS X install, on an external drive
& keep the Digital Audio as primarily a dedicated OS 9 machine? ;)

IIO:
yes, i am reading.

given that the whole line of 4 machines of the DA series was released in 2001(!) it was not to expect that their weird apple-only ATA 4.5 / ATA 6 nonsense only supports classic OS out of the box.

when the 533 DP came out that was only 7 months before the QS 2001 were shipping with 10.0. - and OSX fully supported a PM 7100 hardware, isn´t it.

but good that you noticed it in time, and maybe there is a real fix one day to replace your current workaround. :)
 
 
i am living am a bit out of the drive setup realm because for me personally it is normal to originally format drives under 10.4.11 and then use them mostly under OS9.

of course a good solution will always include full support for dual boot use cases as well as OS9-only machines.
 
 
48 mb/s on a 66 MB/ bus is not great. but also not catastrophic.

except maybe for audio people who needed the bandwidth more than the ultra fast search time a SSD offers.

i wonder if the cheapo bribge and/or the fact that you were using different partitions might have some influence in that result? have you tried running a 70mb/s IDE HD in comparison?

IIO:
"Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to the remaining fourth
partition?"

not a solution for 2 TB disks.

FBz:
Please refer to opening statements of this topic and more specifically, this:
“We will be explaining and showing real world results related to upgrading internal storage with large IDE/PATA drives, large mechanical SATA drives, and of course, SATA SSD drives.”
 
In addition, the prefaced primary focus of these efforts was to optimize and increase performance of these machines (using the specific machines themselves) without “SCSI technologies and SATA add-in cards, since we will be focusing on the absolute cheapest way to go for our members on a low budget ”.

given that the whole line of 4 machines of the DA series was released in 2001(!) it was not to expect that their weird apple-only ATA 4.5 / ATA 6 nonsense only supports classic OS out of the box.  when the 533 DP came out that was only 7 months before the QS 2001 were shipping with 10.0. - and OSX fully supported a PM 7100 hardware, isn´t it.

Seems all a bit moot here as the QS 2001 also had the Ultra ATA/66 (ATA-5) HD Interface and was also similarly limited - until the 2002 QS “B” boards. Refer to graphic above: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6233.0;attach=9786;image

but good that you noticed it in time, and maybe there is a real fix one day to replace your current workaround.

Again, all in an effort to optimize and possibly increase performance with these machines, in a low-cost manner. (And of course to keep you mildly amused.)  ;)

i am living am a bit out of the drive setup realm because for me personally it is normal to originally format drives under 10.4.11 and then use them mostly under OS9.

Do please explain how this might be possible with a Digital Audio, using only a Digital Audio - to accomplish this formatting with Tiger for the DA? All of my attempts to format internal DA drives (HDD & SSD) with Tiger… and only with a DA booted from a Tiger Install Disc - reported the drives as only 128 GB in spite of their actual size. IF you’ve an approach that I am unaware of, such information could be helpful in this effort. (And no fair using a machine other than a DA to do so.)

*I prefer to format, partition and install OS’es almost always in a Quicksilver and then move those drives to their targeted “host” machines (in this case a DA). But that’s a little cheating here and perhaps questionable.

of course a good solution will always include full support for dual boot use cases as well as OS9-only machines.

Exactly. And the reason why the 480 GB SSD was tested and those results posted above. And, as mentioned… testing of any “Ghost Partition” theory is still necessary to determine IF that large remaining space would be fully accessible / usable to OS 9. Thus, the invitation for Digital Audio (or similar machine) owners to test it.

The theoretical “Ghost Partition” approach allows for:
(1). Dual-booting between OS 9 and OS X from the SSD and…
(2). Possible use of that remaining (367 GB) on a fourth partition and…
(3). The possible addition of another HDD - in the bottom position (master jumper)
 
48 mb/s on a 66 MB/ bus is not great. but also not catastrophic.
except maybe for audio people who needed the bandwidth more than the ultra fast search time a SSD offers.
i wonder if the cheapo bribge and/or the fact that you were using different partitions might have some influence in that result? have you tried running a 70mb/s IDE HD in comparison?

Are you confusing mega-bits (mb/sec) with Mega-Bytes (MB/sec)?  ;)

Well, the Crucial 480 GB SSD did test slightly better than that. AND the Addonics or StarTech “RED” Marvel-based adapters have yet to be tested to see if they might provide better numbers. (They did not in the G3 B&W.) BUT here,  even the inexpensive Inland 128 GB SSD (also with a Bribge adapter) QuickBenched better than 48 MB/sec. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6233.0;attach=9779;image

And it seems that in my haste, I neglected to attach / post the QuickBench results from the Crucial 480 GB SSD. (Too many tests and too many graphics here lately… I simply forgot it.) Here it is now:



And while the DA might not be the first choice for “audio people”
it does seem that it is improving here - and at very little added cost.

"Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to
the remaining fourth partition?"

not a solution for 2 TB disks.

Sorry, no 2 TB disks here to test…
but welcome any attempts by other DA owners.
(And especially you IIO.)  :)

AND really looking forward to your insights & contributions to the Quicksilver and MDD portions of this exercise - when those two are tested & examined here. In the meantime, I’ll try to get back to your questions concerning the Mac Mini SSD adapters and the 1TB SSD here: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5955.msg44520.html#msg44520

Test, test, testing, and more testing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version