ktorpil wrote on 2020-05-09, 22:24:

For the love of god my retro build (signature) just doesn't want to run on an SSD. […]
Show full quote

For the love of god my retro build (signature) just doesn't want to run on an SSD.

First I tried a SATA to IDE adapter. Didn't work at all.

Then I bought a PCI SATA card. Well, windows sometimes hangs at boot. Very poor performance with random lockups if it works at all.

So I gave up and still using a HDD now.

I bought a 2.5 inch IDE SSD from china, still didn't arrive but I have high hopes for it.

Meanwhile I've read that people use CF cards on old laptops. What about SD ? Will these be faster than a 7200RPM UDMA 133 HDD, if they indeed work with IDE adapters ?

Thank you.

SSDs definitely can run well under Windows 98SE (I am using one).

Off the top of my mind, here are some things to consider with Windows 98 SE :

- More than 512MB RAM will lead to crashes (there are patches for that)
- Partitions greater than 127GB will not work or cause data corruption (there are patches for that)
- When using the onboard IDE controller (or anything that uses ESDI506.PDR) total disk size cannot be greater than 127GB or data corruption will occur (there are patches for that) .

Not Windows 98 SE specific, but applicable as well .
- Even with patches, if using a disk larger than 127GB, the system BIOS (or the controller card's if using one) must support LBA 48 bit addressing properly, otherwise the disk will not be detected at full capacity or data corruption can occur .
- Some IDE to SATA converters do not work reliably with some IDE controllers or at all .
- Some PCI SATA controllers (VIA based ones, specifically, there may be others) do not work with drives that run faster than SATA 1 (150MB per second) .

EDIT: As for CF cards, they are preferable to SD cards because they only require a passive adapter .

darry wrote on 2020-05-10, 00:03:

- Partitions greater than 127GB will not work or cause data corruption (there are patches for that)

Hard disks greater than 127GB will not work or cause data corruption unless patched. Why is everyone keep saying partitions instead?

Also regarding performance:
- partitions need to be sector-aligned. FDISK.EXE can't do that, so you should partition the disk on a modern (Windows 10/Linux) system.
- don't over-fill. Performance of SSDs drops dramatically when there's little or no free space left. Ideally, leave 25% or so unpartitioned.
- as legacy OSs don't support TRIM, you are better off with old pre-TRIM SLC drives than newer MLC or - worse - TLC drives assuming TRIM-supporting OS. The higher price of SLC is offset by the fact you shouldn't be using excessively large disks in the first place (see above).

derSammler wrote on 2020-05-10, 07:45:

darry wrote on 2020-05-10, 00:03:

- Partitions greater than 127GB will not work or cause data corruption (there are patches for that)

Hard disks greater than 127GB will not work or cause data corruption unless patched. Why is everyone keep saying partitions instead?

Both partition size and disk size are issues . Both need patches, as mentioned in my previous post .

Either Bhdd31.zip and rloew's PATCHATA can address the disk size issue above 127GB . Note that this is only needed if the disk controller driver uses ESDI506.PDR or if you intend to use certain Windows utils (included with Bhdd31.zip) .

rloew's PATCTH1TB addresses the pattition size issue .

rloew's 1TBPLUS combines the two previous patches along with some others .

Note : using partition sizes below 127GB is still prudent to avoid issues with disk utils, IMHO .

dionb wrote on 2020-05-10, 08:31:

Also regarding performance: - partitions need to be sector-aligned. FDISK.EXE can't do that, so you should partition the disk on […]
Show full quote

Also regarding performance:
- partitions need to be sector-aligned. FDISK.EXE can't do that, so you should partition the disk on a modern (Windows 10/Linux) system.
- don't over-fill. Performance of SSDs drops dramatically when there's little or no free space left. Ideally, leave 25% or so unpartitioned.
- as legacy OSs don't support TRIM, you are better off with old pre-TRIM SLC drives than newer MLC or - worse - TLC drives assuming TRIM-supporting OS. The higher price of SLC is offset by the fact you shouldn't be using excessively large disks in the first place (see above).

rloew' s TRIM for FAT32 under DOS can be used for trimming, so using newer SSDs using TLC is not an issue . I would still get a quality one with good endurance .

Oh, and it goes almost without saying that as large disk support on Windows 9x relies on patches and custom drivers, something may still go wrong and corruption and data loss could still occur due to a bug or an unforseen or misunderstood scenario .

For that reason, making regular backups is important and can save plenty of time if something does go wrong .

What way are you using the SATA to IDE adapter? they only support 1 drive per channel so need their own IDE connector with no other drives as they don't support master / slave settings.

I've had really good luck and results with based Silicon Image SATA cards(Promise based cards should also work well), I use one in my Athlon XP 3000+ windows 98se build to run 2 SATA HDDs I've not tried an SSD yet but that's next on the list.

It's a Silicon Image SIL 3112A and it runs 1 160GB HDD and a 250GB HDD, Although my motherboard BIOS supports booting from SCSI

synrgy87 wrote on 2020-05-10, 13:54:

What way are you using the SATA to IDE adapter? they only support 1 drive per channel so need their own IDE connector with no other drives as they don't support master / slave settings.

I've had really good luck and results with based Silicon Image SATA cards(Promise based cards should also work well), I use one in my Athlon XP 3000+ windows 98se build to run 2 SATA HDDs I've not tried an SSD yet but that's next on the list.

It's a Silicon Image SIL 3112A and it runs 1 160GB HDD and a 250GB HDD, Although my motherboard BIOS supports booting from SCSI

The only issue that I have had with my SIL3114 is that TRIM under DOS not work. I imagine that the SIL3112A would be similar in that regard . For SSD use (TRIM support) , Promise non-RAID cards look like the best option .

darry wrote on 2020-05-10, 13:59:

The only issue that I have had with my SIL3114 is that TRIM under DOS not work. I imagine that the SIL3112A would be similar in that regard . For SSD use (TRIM support) , Promise non-RAID cards look like the best option .

Need to get hold of some Promise controllers and a few SSDs but TBH speed wise the 7200RPM SATA drives are nice n snappy for 98SE.

I wonder if a custom controller card for this purpose would be worth looking into.

synrgy87 wrote on 2020-05-10, 14:51:

darry wrote on 2020-05-10, 13:59:

The only issue that I have had with my SIL3114 is that TRIM under DOS not work. I imagine that the SIL3112A would be similar in that regard . For SSD use (TRIM support) , Promise non-RAID cards look like the best option .

Need to get hold of some Promise controllers and a few SSDs but TBH speed wise the 7200RPM SATA drives are nice n snappy for 98SE.

I wonder if a custom controller card for this purpose would be worth looking into.

Well, a Promise Ultra133 TX2 with a Jmicron JMD330 is 10MB/second faster than native SATA SIL3114 (90MB/second vs 80MB/second) . I have not measured Windows boot time of SSD vs hard disk, but it seems faster .

Like I said I have high hopes for the IDE SSD I bought ( https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32860675035.h … .28a24c4dRlbAcc ) Will update once it arrives.

Why SSD I've noticed modern single platter 80gb drives made around 2010 are saturating my ide controller anyway.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-05-11, 02:10:

Why SSD I've noticed modern single platter 80gb drives made around 2010 are saturating my ide controller anyway.

Random access

candle_86 wrote on 2020-05-11, 02:10:

Why SSD I've noticed modern single platter 80gb drives made around 2010 are saturating my ide controller anyway.

120GB SSDs are cheap and widely available new so ontop of the speed and noise/vibration benefits there's supply and pricing.

I've been reliably using IDE to SD adapters.. the only caveat being they have to be the only device on that IDE channel

ktorpil wrote on 2020-05-11, 07:31:

candle_86 wrote on 2020-05-11, 02:10:

Why SSD I've noticed modern single platter 80gb drives made around 2010 are saturating my ide controller anyway.

Random access

Nothing wrong with it at all. But good hdds are becoming rarer and more expensive than 120gb ssds, need the ability to limit to 120gb, and are only a few years away from dying probably. I have 500gb seagates (at 120gb) in 3 win98 pcs, built at a time when ssds were expensive. If i ever have to replace the hdds in them it will be an easy choice.

My PATA SSD arrived today and after cloning the HDD I can say that it works perfectly. That is, if there is no other thing connected to the same IDE channel.

Well, damn. I have built the thing neatly with 1 IDE cable going to the HDDs and another to the disc drives so I'm going to have to look for a super long IDE cable and give up on one of the DVD drives if I want to use the SSD.

Not noticing any issues so far other than this. I'm not sure if it's any faster btw. Might give up altogether and continue with mechanical drives.

ktorpil wrote on 2020-06-06, 10:58:

My PATA SSD arrived today and after cloning the HDD I can say that it works perfectly. That is, if there is no other thing connected to the same IDE channel.

Well, damn. I have built the thing neatly with 1 IDE cable going to the HDDs and another to the disc drives so I'm going to have to look for a super long IDE cable and give up on one of the DVD drives if I want to use the SSD.

Not noticing any issues so far other than this. I'm not sure if it's any faster btw. Might give up altogether and continue with mechanical drives.

Glad it works at least partially.

I assume that you tried the SSD configured as Master and the other device configured as a slave .

What capacity is the SSD you got (your ink lists several)?

What is the chipset of that PCI controller that was unstable under Windows ?
EDIT:
Also what mothrrboard are you using ?
Maybe there's a way to fix the issues with the PCI controller and if not it may be useful to know what to avoid, at least in a configuration like yours .

darry wrote on 2020-06-06, 13:29:

Glad it works at least partially. […]
Show full quote

ktorpil wrote on 2020-06-06, 10:58:

My PATA SSD arrived today and after cloning the HDD I can say that it works perfectly. That is, if there is no other thing connected to the same IDE channel.

Well, damn. I have built the thing neatly with 1 IDE cable going to the HDDs and another to the disc drives so I'm going to have to look for a super long IDE cable and give up on one of the DVD drives if I want to use the SSD.

Not noticing any issues so far other than this. I'm not sure if it's any faster btw. Might give up altogether and continue with mechanical drives.

Glad it works at least partially.

I assume that you tried the SSD configured as Master and the other device configured as a slave .

What capacity is the SSD you got (your ink lists several)?

What is the chipset of that PCI controller that was unstable under Windows ?
EDIT:
Also what mothrrboard are you using ?
Maybe there's a way to fix the issues with the PCI controller and if not it may be useful to know what to avoid, at least in a configuration like yours .

I tried it as master and slave.

I got a 64GB.

It was a VIA VT6421A

I am using an ASUS CUSL2-C

I bought IDE expension cables and will try again.