Author Topic: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.  (Read 1128 times)

Offline G40

  • Enthusiast Member (25+ Posts)
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 13
B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« on: March 21, 2023, 05:40:50 AM »
Thought I'd see if I could upgrade my blue and white g3, (Rev.1, 350mhz). The original 6gb HD is noisy and obviously pretty small...

Got the Bribge IDE-SATA adapter and a 128gb Hynix SSD. Partitioned and installed OS9.2.2 from the install media available here.

It worked but has rendered the machine painfully slow.

Also crashed at startup...complaining of a bus error.

Any ideas? I may try it in the G4 instead and see if it that is any different.

Offline dosdude1

  • Enthusiast Member (25+ Posts)
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2023, 08:35:54 PM »
Thought I'd see if I could upgrade my blue and white g3, (Rev.1, 350mhz). The original 6gb HD is noisy and obviously pretty small...

Got the Bribge IDE-SATA adapter and a 128gb Hynix SSD. Partitioned and installed OS9.2.2 from the install media available here.

It worked but has rendered the machine painfully slow.

Also crashed at startup...complaining of a bus error.

Any ideas? I may try it in the G4 instead and see if it that is any different.

Make sure your IDE to SATA adapter is NOT utilizing the horrible JMicron JM20330 SATA-IDE bridge IC. These are known to be junk, and tend to either not work at all on some systems, or perform very poorly when they do work. I'd advise using either a native IDE SSD, or an IDE-SATA adapter based on the Marvell 88SA8040 or 88SA8051 chipset. Another issue could be the IDE controller itself, as they are known to be quite flaky in the early B&W G3s.

Even better, just utilize a PCI SATA card for your SSD. Any Sil3112-based card will work in OS 9, and can be relatively easily flashed using my custom patched and compressed version of the SeriTek/1S2 ROM for these cards.

Offline G40

  • Enthusiast Member (25+ Posts)
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2023, 11:47:17 AM »
Hmmm...

I specifically sought out a JM203320-based "Bribge" adapter based on the fairly glowing comments elsewhere here...

http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6231.0.html

Seems they are a pretty reliable option for the G3 unless I am missing something... The Hynix SSD is possibly more of an unknown?

Offline G40

  • Enthusiast Member (25+ Posts)
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2023, 12:26:11 PM »
Have just tried the SSD/adapter combo in the G4. Seems happy - certainly boots faster with the SSD than it does from the hard drive (1 min 11 secs vs. 1 min 44).

Also tried a CUDA reset in the G3. No change - I'm still waiting for it to boot up. I'd estimate circa 10 minutes to boot up from the last time I waited!

Offline FBz

  • Moderator
  • Platinum Member (500+ Posts)
  • *****
  • Posts: 628
  • Fury-Fungus FdB/FBz
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 152
Benchmarks! / B&W Bribges!
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2023, 09:53:20 AM »
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is….
Or, once more unto the breach.

It’s easy to cast “horrible” and “junk” aspersions on all JMicron / JM20330 based adapters, especially if you’ve never tested an EVB-002-3 “Bribge” adapter. And it is likely that many here have had their share of JMicron based adapters that do not work, or work poorly - and testimony on many of those clunkers is scattered throughout this Forum. (The 44-pin, MCA-004 V1.3 immediately and painfully comes to my mind.) But that’s another "G4 Mac mini" story.
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5955.msg44360.html#msg44360

However, it is very hard to beat a Bribge EVB-002-3 for its’ low cost and near-matched performance up against Marvell based adapters… especially in single SSD and some dual drive situations. All of the Bribges here are tried, tested and true. Even if they can’t spell ‘Bridge’ or ‘Technology’.

“But it doesn’t cost very much. It simply can’t be as good as the more expensive Marvell based adapters.”



Benchmark Methodology…
Not all just about the Bribges.
The gnat’s ass approach.


Most of us are familiar with the Numeric View panel of QuickBench 1.5 and 2.0. And most of us will run only that first NV panel and call that good. Now tell me that just looking at all those rows of numbers that you can really get a good assessment of your tested drive’s overall performance. By just looking at the Blue “Peak Performance” numbers? And some will even run the Extended panel too. But still, what do you really know that you can readily compare to another drive or any modification(s) to your machine(s)?

Bupkis. Well this blue number IS bigger than that blue number.

Now maybe everyone else is already doing this and I just woke up to the fact that if you add all of those rows of numbers together and then average your results for each column, and then add those totals together… and then divide by the number of columns - you will arrive a single “averaged” number score for that panel. Too much? It only gets worse.

Then if you’ve also ran the Extended panel (and the Extended “Plus”/ 20-100 MB panel in QuickBench 2.0) you may have two more panels to add, average and then add those results all together AND average all that to arrive at a single, solitary, all-inclusive, overall performance number. [Viola!] That, you can then compare to other drives or modification states. I’ve been calling this OPC. You’ll see all this later, below. But again, it was only me that wasn’t already doing all of this, right?

And the real trick of this… the glimmering “eye and mind saving” alternative… is QuickBench 4.0.  because it adds and averages ALL of the columns in all of the panels for you. (But it only runs under OS X 10.2 or above.) You still must add and average a few numbers, but nothing like the longhand spreadsheet example below of this QuickBench 1.5 example. Hallelujah indeed! All results here are taken from bootable OS 9.2.2 partitions.



Remember, the first two lines of the Numeric View are not used. Remember the first two lines of…



The first two lines in the Numeric View from QB 1.5 and 2.0 are excluded in order to match the sample ranges tested and reported under QB 4.0. I tested and compared both and results are nearly identical, if not exactly. Those 1st two lines often contain KB/sec results and I’m to lazy to move decimal points anyway to convert them to fractions of a MB.

If I’ve not completely lost you already, you might see that the OPC for this March 2022, QuickBench 1.5 benchmark test of a Seagate 60 GB 5400 RPM HDD in a B&W will yield you 19.20. That’s 15.766404 plus 22.648444 = 38.414844. Divide that by the TWO panels, to then arrive at  the 19.20 overall averaged score.

AND then that… subtracted from the 25.74 (noted in Bribge tests further down below here) will provide a difference of +5.86 points over the Seagate HDD. So roughly, the SSD + Bribge nets you about a 34% increase in performance over the Seagate - if my math is correct. Mind you, this is only a two-panel averaged score from QuickBench 1.5 / and three test panels are better & more accurate. But this two-panel is intended here only as an easy example.

So based on the above, if you were able to acquire a Bribge here from the Forum for $3.99 (only in the Continental U.S.) and you can pick up a low cost 128 GB SSD (like the Inland brand SSD from MicroCenter last week - $14.99) you could increase your B&W’s performance by 34%… for right around $20.00. Or... for less than what a StarTech Marvell-based adapter would cost you alone. And that StarTech… without a 128 GB SSD.
 
A lot to absorb here above - but I had to get it all out of my head. Mea culpa. / Clear-As-Mud.



More Benchmarking!
Way less exciting than a cowbell.

Here are the benchmark comparisons from a B&W G3, Rev.2. 450 MHz.
I know, not the same as a Rev.1 but I’m not swapping mobos (yet.)
Two-panel QuickBench 2.0 results here:

     

Most seem content to only run the first “Numeric View” panel and only compare those simple results.
Above, w/ QuickBench 2.0 - included Extended Panel for more complete spectrum comparisons.
Numeric only: 20 vs. 34 vs. 44. Or two test panels combined results: 25 vs. 47 vs. 67?
Seems apparent that a flashed SiL3112 card can nearly double performance.
But then… the Sonnet Tempo PCI card in the B&W video slot - scores 67.
[For feeling that need… for feeling that speed.]


   
       

Above, also with QB 2.0 (and 4.0) and with the 20-100 MB panel results also included. Much better?
And why QB 4.0? Each test panel auto-averaged by 4.0 / negates need to manual add 2.0 columns.
And including the 20-100 MB panel provides a much more inclusive OA performance assessment.




Enter The Bribge
(Above was all StarTech baby.)

       

Tested more than once to confirm these results.
Above… the most recent head-to-head comparisons between Bribge
and a StarTech in a B&W G3 Rev.2 / using QuickBench 4.0.

Now again, QuickBench 4.0 reportedly will not run on anything less than OS 10.2 - so it was used here from a booted Tiger partition / and on two very different OS 9 partitions… and with very nearly identical results. After many recent weeks of benchmarking here - QB 4.0 has now been adopted here when it can be used in this manner. (And no, not just on the Bribge and B&W… on MDDs, Quicksilvers, Digital Audios, etc.)

On older machines (or those incapable of running OS 10.2 or above) one may sadly still be adding all of those QuickBench 2.0 columns of numbers. (Thanks to Borgmac for the QuickBench 4.0 gentle nudge.) If only I had known.


Do not expand this image for larger view. *Also: 1 KByte and 2 KByte QB 2.0
Numeric View results omitted for comparison QuickBench 4.0’s test sampling.
Many thanks to Ms. D. Lenoir for her unwavering math skills and patience.



QuickBench 2.0 on the left, QuickBench 4.0 on the right.



So… should anyone spend more money for a Marvell based adapter in a B&W Rev.1 (or even a flashed SiL3112 SATA Controller card)? I wouldn’t. Not at least until I could get something less expensive (other than the original B&W’s HDD) to sucessfully boot from the Rev.1 mobo. Not so quick to “throw money” at these vintage Blue and White machines. And isn’t the primary focus “cost vs. performance” anyway?

I’ll be re-installing a Rev.1 mobo in one of the B&Ws here. But I am almost certain that I used a Bribge in one of the B&W Rev.1’s here - before I eventually converted it to a Rev.2 mobo. Do keep reading if you’ve made it this far. “Gripping” I know.



AND NOW THE B&W - REV.1
Yes, I finally had to do the swap.

I don’t know what it is about the B&W G3s over on that “other side of the pond” but a pattern seems to be forming? Maybe it’s the difference in electrical voltage? I haven’t a clue. See: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6225.0.html The B&Ws remain cantankerous where-ever they’re plugged-in. Rev.1 or Rev.2 mobos.

So, swapped out a B&W Rev.2 with a Rev.1 mobo and tested everything all over again.
And not only just with Tiger. Might also notice the CPU swapped from 450 MHz to 350 MHz?

   
   
   

   

   



Performance?
    Feeling the feel.

Cold boot times with OS 9.2.2 ranged from 28.65 seconds to 33.87 with the Bribge.
And 40.98 seconds to 41.35 seconds with OS 10.4.11 (Tiger) also w/ Bribge.

That’s total time elapsed from button-push to a complete desktop display.

With the StarTech it was 31.22 seconds for OS 9 and 50.86 to 51.18 seconds for Tiger.
(Scout’s honor!)

Now also keep in mind - less than 1 GB of total RAM installed here… but close.

       

Why would anyone pay more for a StarTech in a B&W G3 (Rev.1 or 2)?
OR… for use in G4s (other than the Cable Select required MDDs)?

But, you can also use Bribges in the MDDs (set to Master) in MDD single drive scenarios.

As for G40’s B&W Rev.1 problem… yes it could be the Bribge.
BUT it works in his Digital Audio! AND it works here in a Rev.1.
Someone in the U.K. or the EU needs to report a working Bribge
in a B&W (Rev.1). IIO is that you? Anybody? It's not the Bribge!

Believe that G40 is now opting to leave the Hynix + Bribge
in his DA and returning an HDD back into his B&W Rev.1.

“…although the G3 B&W undoubtedly has style, I am going to recommend
                            newbies skip this model and grab a DA, QS, or MDD G4.”

                                            *Out of context here - but most certainly a very apt point.

Bribges (EVB-002-3) in the Continental U.S. here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5967.0.html

Hopefully, this finally concludes the once-and-for-frikken-all  StarTech-Marvell vs. Bribge-JMicron misCONception.



But wait… there’s more!

And now in closing (yes really/ finally)… from Petros90:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6225.msg46669.html#msg46669

“So why don't we just cut out the middleman, and replace the OS9 on the SSD with DieHard's excellent final Last OS9?

Procedure - boot from CD, copy the original SSD OS9 System Folder onto the Panther partition, de-bless just in case, copy the DieHard OS9.2.2 System Folder to the OS9 partition, bless, reboot. The whole thing took minutes.

Now boots from any OS to any OS. The only caveat is that on booting into OS9 a dialog box appears asking for the Install CD.”

@G40:  You might try the above with the Bribge + Hynix in the DA and then move it back into the B&W. I assume that Petros90 only copied the SSD’s OS 9 System folder to the Panther partition (in your case, the Tiger partition?) in order to save it… should he need to move it back to its’ original location afterwards. AND Petros90’s B&W also used a Rev.2 mobo.

At this point, who knows? It could work. Maybe? Always just one more thing. 😉



Nah, I’m finished.

Sorry, no pretty pictures… Well, maybe a prettier one?

Here’s a QuickBench 4.0 result from an SSD in a Quicksilver, destined for eventual use in an MDD.
Maybe its’ recipient will report on a better than 55.84 score, once it is MDD installed and tested?
Click on the image, it’s 15 inches wide full-size. And it’s “just a bit better” than the B&W’s 25.74.

« Last Edit: March 27, 2023, 10:10:15 AM by FBz »

Offline GaryN

  • Platinum Member (500+ Posts)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
  • active member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2023, 01:16:20 PM »
HOLY CRAP Fbz !!!

Do you ever sleep? and…

Ya got any more of that stuff?

Offline chrisNova777

  • Veteran Member (100+ Posts)
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2023, 01:27:04 PM »
if theres any mac that benefits the most from the addition of a pci sata card its the B+W G3.
their built in ATA systems were known to be shit even when they were the main flagship product of apple
thats why the companies i worked for didnt even use ATA hard drives with them.. only SCSI... and backup to TAPE backup + DVD-RAM for archival (this was in the early 2000s)

Offline DieHard

  • Administrator
  • Platinum Member (500+ Posts)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2023, 02:10:21 PM »
FBz wins the "amazing most detailed post" category for the 3rd year in a row :)

Wow, I love numbers !  That is amazing !

As Chris stated. these units really seem to shine with a SCSI or sata PCI card, but since SCSI drives are super old and in the "crazy" pricing category... it seams anyone with these baby's have to go 2.5" SSD and a cheap "Bribge" and make it a usable machine for $20.

The Sonnet Tempo would be a nice boost, but it seams in the future these are left for large number of people that both use OS9 and have also won the PowerBall lottery... I see there is a nice specimen here for the mere price of $800

Offline Syntho

  • Platinum Member (500+ Posts)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2023, 04:21:34 AM »
Glad I got mine years back. Was gonna get another one afterward but I didn't want to pay $65. How times have changed...

Offline V.Yakob

  • Enthusiast Member (25+ Posts)
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
  • New Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: B&W G3 unhappy with SSD.
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2023, 02:27:11 AM »
The other day I got a G3 B&W (Rev. B) with 300 Mhz CPU, I connected a flashed Sil3112 board and a Netac 128 Gb SSD to it and got good read results and strange to write.
It's not clear why the write speed is so low.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2023, 05:35:41 AM by V.Yakob »

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal