This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


25 posts / 0 new
Last post
SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11
SATA drives: crashing and corruption, due to Jumper Blocks

On my PowerMac G4 and pair of PCI cards for SATA access, I've been using this for ten years, putting up with Intermittent occasional troublesome behavior, but only now have discovered that I must, on certain drive units, Set the physical "jumper" described as being for communication speed governing, and only then will my come&go errors go away for good. Wow, just, wow. Hardware badly designed!

Comments

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

You should always check the jumper settings on drives. They're all different, plus it can depend on things like which BUS they're attached to. Some bare drives have the settings on their label, but others don't, so best to do check on the manufacturer website or Google search

On my old PowerMac G3 I had to swap the drives around on the BUSes so that I was able to boot on the Zip disk as an emergency boot drive if the hard drive failed (not that I ever need to do that in the end), but I then had to re-swap them on the rare occasion that I needed to boot on the CD-ROm drive instead.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Sounds like your G3 has PATA (formerly "ATA") drives, they all had and needed jumpers for addressing. I'm pulling my hair out over "SATA" drives instead, some of which have zero jumpers, typically no jumper labels when there are jumpers, and typically sold without any jumper bits supplied because the default setting is always jumperless. Some mfrs say to "ignore" their jumpers, they're not used for anything, others say the 4 inline pins are a serial port similar to USB, so might jumping 5V to Ground cause a short circuit? What a mess!

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

The communication speed governor jumper on some SATA drives is said to be for when certain older host controllers can't function without it. Even though everybody's figured out comm speed ought to negotiate properly automatically, plug & play ya know. I'd think such trouble would appear obvious, yet, my drives work fine 99.99% of the time when jumperless. Applying the jumper is making some but not all drives slow down, more about this later in this thread.

My controller PCI cards (two are the same brand/model) can experience internal buffer overrun, only when burst accessing large files in excess of SATA I, let's say at least 10MB file and more probability of an error the larger the file is. This scenario explains every aspect of the trouble I've been having. Directory data and tiny files never corrupt. There's never a comm error, the bad data always appears as if it was communicated correctly. Bad reads are the most common, bad writes are rare. It might require 2 drives running at once, like when copying and when comparing, i.e. 1 drive reading into RAM might never fail. Even so, failures are intermittent, days and weeks go by without errors, then, at other times: comparing two DVD libraries (many files 1GB in size) can express false mismatches at a rate up to 75% of all video title sets. I've ruled out electromagnetic interference.

Ultimately my SATA PCI cards are the bad part, I've already tried two versions of flash firmware on them dated a year apart, 2008 vs. 2009, from after the arrival of SATA II. Neither firmware version stops the errors. And, according to the mfr website, I got the highest version of firmware they offer for this card.

Somebody else knows exactly what I'm talking about - in the wikipedia page for "Serial ATA" there's a paragraph about experiencing "data corruption" as a result of connecting SATA-II devices to SATA-I controllers (and which have "Silicon Image" chips, as mine do), but, the paragraph has many mistakes and "needs citation".

Jumpering driveunits ain't gonna fully solve this, because not all drives have the necessary jumper.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

These read errors I'm getting just introduce corrupt data into the computer. The write errors make for a system freeze fatal crash. And I've experienced the write error many times while performing "secure erase". Two drives at once isn't necessary, I've gotten read err with just one drive at a time.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Idea: my SATA PCI card model has its own big jumper block onboard (most models don't). Maybe I can attach a jumper to my card, or four jumpers one for each port, and it'll affect all drives which become attached. I'll be looking into this... On 2nd thought, the 4 jumpers on my card are probably for attaching "busy light" LEDs, I'll try not to short out anything...

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

Thats interesting, SkyCapt. I was wondering what the pins may be good for.
My WD drives have 8 pins:

P1010279-1

Seagates got 4:

P1010280-1

The only drive with something written on the PCB is an old 2.5" Fujitsu.

P1010281-1

G / UAO / UAI / +5V could point to some USB-2 like serial interface.
Luckily I never needed to tinker with eyelet or pins, as the drives just work with post dual core Intel chipsets.

Edit:
Seems non matching transfer speeds were a known issue, as described by a Samsung leaflet here:

Screenshot-2019-01-13-at-19-34-34

I´ll have a look whether my Samsung drives have jumpers too or if there is any writing on the drives logic board.
According to Wikipedia, the speed downgrade was done via jumper or software.
How to set a jumper remains a mystery.

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

My Samsung oldies seem to have a similar 8-pin jumper set as the Western Digital devices.

P1010286-1

The 80GB one is the only HDD with a jumper setting printed on the label.
Telling from the label, the third pair of pins (counted from the data connector) would need a jumper to set the drive in 1.5 Gbps mode.
What the other pins are good for is not described.

P1010282-1

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

According to the manual at ManualsLib.com ...

NOTE : SATA 1.5Gb/s Speed Limit Jumper setting Only for SATA 3.0Gb/s productsIn some rare cases SATA 1.5Gb/s hosts can not establish SATA interface connection with SATA 3.0Gb/s devices due to interface protocolissues. In this case the jumper may be installed as shown on the figure below to force the device to negotiate for SATA 1.5Gb/s speed.

A Google image search brings up this image, but the original page no longer exists on FixYa.com and those are the Samsung PATA jumper settings, not SATA according to the manual page at ManualOwl.com (which also says to use software for the 1.5GB setting, but that no longer exists either):

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

I'm still busy testing WD&Hitachi drives on the troublesome G4, but I've already tested Seagate drives and all kinds of drives on my 2008 Mac which has a native SATA-II port. This don't look encouraging for my G4: Seagate drives don't respond to their speed control jumper and persist with errors even with the jumper.

Using "QuickBench" for testing SSD's that are rated for SATA-III @ 500 MB/sec reveals the SATA-II limit is 269 MB/sec burst read & 248 MB/sec burst write, whereas the SATA-I limit is 123 MB/sec burst read & 121 MB/sec burst write on my PMG4 with PCI controller. In Tiger RAID formation I have my PMG4 doing 195 MB/sec burst read & 177 MB/sec burst write with two SSDs "striped". Fast like take that!, yet prone to errors how this thread focuses on. The SSDs are NOT reacting positively to receiving a jumper, some SSDs don't offer jumpers.

All my Seagate drives aren't reacting either! Apparently the Seagate speed control jumper simply downgrades one generation, so it would require SATA-II drives to get stepped down to SATA-I. My Seagate drives are all SATA-III and therefore step down to SATA-II which doesn't help me at all!

I have two or three WesternDigital drives which are slowing down with jumper, but I'm still in the process of testing whether they're gonna solve my PMG4 trouble. On the SATA-II system, they might not even exceed SATA-I ceiling, they reduce speed waayyy below the SATA-I speed when jumpered, but they only reduce their write speed and keep their read speed the same. The WD jumper for speed governing is "2nd" vertical column counting from the data port.

I also have a 2009 Hitachi SATA-II drive which crashes the PowerMac unless I jumper it. It's only got a one-jumper block, no guesswork. This drive crashing vs no-crashing already lets us know where this thread is heading...!

Anyway, one of my Seagate 2TB non-hybrid drives is doing 212 MB/sec burst read & write on the SATA-II system, incredible. My 2nd fastest platter is a Seagate 8TB that does 178 MB/s. And note that platters can report different speeds depending on whether the test takes place on an inner diameter vs outer diameter track. Cut a drive into a lot of partitions and compare "QuickBench" between first and last partition. The outer diameter goes faster because more magnetic material passes underneath the drive head, like having a faster rpm relative to its inner rings.

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

Nice findings!
Nobody mentioned Toshiba so far?
I´ll see whether my WD and Samsung drives will respond to the braking jumper.
Not that it would tell much for a G4 PCI HBA, but good to know still.

24bit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Nov 19

I did not fare well with QuickBench and newer macOS, which had to be expected.
Snow Leopard does work, but trying a Yosemite volume from 10.6 triggers the no permission pop up.
Therefore BlackMagic Speed Test must do.

Samsung Spinpoint T166, HD321KJ, sATA 2.5, 3GB/s
Without jumper: 50MB/s write, 50MB/s read.
Jumper 3 set: 45MB/s write, 37MB/s read.
In either case a 5GB test file is written and read several times.

The device comes from my wife´s former GMA-950 XP box, about 40´000 hours power on.
The drive is rather slow by default, but J-3 slows it down further.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

This is it; gold.
Putting jumpers on the "1.5 Gbps" limiters, and no more errors thus far.

My machine PowerMac G4 has various SATA controllers with the 1.5 Gbps (aka 150 MB/s, SATA I, Sata one) speed ceiling. It was a premonition when I got a yr 2009 Hitachi Deskstar HDD that crashed constantly, but works great with the jumper On. I was supposed to realize that this means my SATA controllers have the focus "issue" where attached drives require this jumper, even though all (not Hitachi) drives appear to function right most of the time. Perhaps I can use my Hitachi HDD to determine which host controllers do/don't have a bad attitude.

I've got twin 3TB WD drives in my PowerMac, both specially partitioned for correct 2.2TB limit Tiger has, both now with the 1.5Gbps jumper applied (located 2nd jumper from WD's data port). The drives don't appear to read/write slower with jumper, the bus limit is always max both ways. But I know I am applying the correct jumper to these WD drives because they do then read/write slower when I tested these drives on my 2008 Mac that's got native SATA-II capability. These WD drives did 100% were involved in corrupt reads and occasional crashing when they had been unjumpered. Now no trouble yet, thems jumpered.

I have twin Kingston SSD in striped-RAID formation that boots OSX Tiger. These SSD were trouble prone too, and the Kingston info said to ignore their jumper block because it's unused. Well I elected to try their jumper block regardless. Didn't have high hopes when my SATA-II system showed no change in speed, but the SSD might know it's connecting to SATA-II and therefore avoid stepping down to SATA-I. Anyway, back to PowerMac and I've applied the jumper (1st jumper counting from drive's data connector) onto my Kingston SSDs and again no more trouble thus far. EDIT: using jumper #1 no help, trying jumper #2of2 now....

Casualties in this whole mess: all my big TeraByte Seagate brand HDDs which make trouble both without and with jumper. I think their speed limiting jumper only reduces SATA-III downto SATA-II thereby ignoring SATA-I compatibility. Also, My SSDs that don't have any jumper block, some of which are Kingston brand even. And a sorry bunch of WD HDDs (2TB-3TB) I discarded over the years because as trouble seemed to increase with these drive units I gave up on them instead of jumpering them!

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Still no funky read errors from my WD drives, and I know these drives have the read errors when not jumpered.

But my Kingston SSDs (in RAID) didn't get fixed using their jumper #1 so I'm off to trying the jumpers #2 they got.

There's a 2nd type of error I've never really described to y'all, just been calling it "crashing". Its more rare even than the scrambled read problem, even more difficult to make progress. It is usually during a large write op, there'll be a total freeze requiring I power off. For all I knew it might have been my overclocked CPU's fault. Blessedly, I've come to realize this is a mirror image of the read-only buffer-overrun onboard the PCI card. It's a write-only buffer-underrun fault onboard the PCI card. I realize my SSD-in-RAID is doing this usually after erasing and rewriting multi-GB to it, see it requires intense writing to lockup the system whereas casual use works almost all the time. There's no beachball, it's a hardcore freeze, no amount of waiting can help it.

Ironic. The SATA 1.5Gbps card talks to the drives faster than 1.5Gbps, it steps up the frequency automatically, and I used to complain when hardware didn't step up automatically. Now it turns out the auto stepup is causing the incompatibility and failures, because the PCI card's buffer size and internal drivers were designed for 1.5Gbps max. The card talks to PCI at no more than the 1.5Gbps rate, but talks faster than anticipated to the storage units, allowing for buffer management errors.

I really ought to hunt for properly functioning SATA-PCI cards. Fingers crossed, let jumper #2 fix my Kingston SSDs - maybe I'll know in another month! ugh.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

Interesting thread!
I've used SATA-to-IDE adapters for attaching SATA drives to the on-board IDE controller of Power Macs G4 and to the PCI IDE expansion card ACARD UltraATA/133 in one Power Mac G3 350 MHz (original 1999 model with the faulty internal IDE port, PowerMac1,1), using the master/slave jumper of the adapter. I've never had issues with this so far, but this is a SATA drive on an IDE controller and therefore a different case...

On the topic of SATA drives on SATA controllers: I recently upgraded all my G5s to use SSDs instead of the SATA-I (1.5Gbit/s) and SATA-II (3Gbit/s) HDDs I had installed before, some of them original Apple drives (the SATA-I drives mostly). I haven't tried a SATA-6Gbit/s (SATA-III) HDD yet...

Anyhow, with the HDDs I never had issues. I've never fiddled with jumpers. But with the SSDs, all of them SATA-6Gbit/s (because I just recently bought them), the trouble was that the system just didn't detect them! I tried them both on a Power Mac G5 from 2003 (original Dual 2.0 GHz model, PowerMac7,2) and a Late-2005 (Dual-Core 2.0 GHz model, PowerMac11,2). Interestingly, on the Late-2005 the same drive would be detected like 1 out of 20 times and was then, when detected, usable until reboot/shutdown without issues.

In the end the solution to this not being able to detect the drives properly was a surprise to me. I had to extend the SATA cable by about 40 to 60 inches, using two or three 20 inches extension cables (like this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006WPC1TK). With this extension the SATA-6Gbit/s (SATA-III) SSDs are now always detected by the system and using them with Mac OS X is working reliable so far and without issues... (The only issue is of course that no version of Mac OS X on PowerPC supports TRIM.) The SSDs don't have any jumpers.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

My numerous drives are all SATA-III type 6gbps (except that one 2009 Hitachi HDD is a SATA-II 3gbps). The computer faulting is an overclocked PowerMac G4 MDD-2003 with twin yr.2008 SATA-I PCI cards of brand FirmTek model SeriTek, Silicon Image (SIL) brand processors onboard cards. In an earlier post this thread, I mistakenly said maybe failure needs two drives bursting simultaneously, but now I remember I already confirmed a single drive operating can corrupt on me. I've tested, at when it's acting up at its worst, that I can use OSX Terminal to calculate the "md5" checksum of huge disk image files, and get reported different checksums for one and the same file.

The cause of this is so slim, it's possible my PCI cards could be put in some other computers and there not be any faults. The profound intermittent nature is saying a lot. I can chew through dozens TB of data and have no faults, weeks go by. Then I can have a 'spell' of corrupt activity in which bad reads happen all day for several days. This tells me that the comings and goings of "background activity" which shares my PCI bus is playing a role. The faulting comes and goes like the weather, same as how the by design low-bandwidth PCI chatter in most computers normally "comes and goes like the weather" also.

Testing my solution (the #2 jumper on WesternDigital brand HDDs) I often when I sleep set my two jumpered internal WD HDDs to compare files against each other over a TB of the same data stored on each. Now, no more faulting from these particular drives when jumpered, I'm convinced. And I had tried sooo many other things that ended up not affecting the issue.

Here's an interesting take on this, you seem knowledgeable to comprehend and get the cutting edge nature of it. My PCI cards certainly have built in protection against buffer overrun and underrun, they wouldn't get far without it. The protective software onboard the cards executes inside of loops, so in order to have a failure the overrun/underrun has to happen in-between two safety checks, occuring in less time than one loop iteration. It has to require the bully nature of Doubling the drive cable rate, or Quadrupling the drive cable rate, to break this defense. On one hand, increasing the bridge's margin of safety or buffer size would fix this, but why would any cardmaker futureproof it by supplying a buffer larger than necessary for the task at hand, SATA-I 1.5gbps. There is another variable: the execution speed of the SATA processor. Speeding up the SATA processor will make it process its I/O loops faster, presenting less or no opportunity for overrun/underrun. Imagine if when my PCI cards were produced, they allowed chips onboard in some range of speed X to Y MHz. The exact same circuit running the exact same codes might exist error free when the SATA chip has speed Y MHz, but my errors become tangible when the SATA chip has the speed X MHz.

My situation is SATA chips faster than their own good. SATA-I was adopted by Apple in 2003. SATA-II began in 2007. My yr.2008 SATA-I hosts were made when SATA-I was old news, the cards undoubtedly use processors faster than SATA-I's introduction, and they aren't shy about interacting with driveunits at newer higher speeds.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Good test result: the yr.2009 hitachi hdd, unjumpered, Reads all I want without failure because its platter's ability doesn't exceed SATA-I, but she system freezes immediately after beginning any large Write operation. It proves what I've been saying, that Read and Write errors don't have to happen together, and while they have different effects, they're both being caused by the same thing: the unjumpered speed governing.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

How would I solve such a situation with a SATA 6Gbit/s SSD without any jumpers?

semvalidade2006's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 21

Some of those pins on the back of SATA drives are used for temperature check (sensors). In some models of iMac computers, instead of the already well know temperature sensor glued to the side of the HDD, apple used to have a cable connected from the pin block into the MoBo.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

True that.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

I just made my PowerMac G4 run with a SATA-II PCI host, these past three days. They said it couldn't be done, I must be the first to do it then. I'm booting (Tiger 10.4.8) from a 200 MB/s driveunit and successfully running all my games from 200 MB/s also. I have a FirmTek SeriTek 2SE4 SATA-II PCI-X card in my model Mirror Door 2003 computer, NOT meant to be compatible (I've used two of the card's flashware v5.3.1 & v5.3.2 and both work the same, however v5.3.2 is terrible at booting, while v5.3.1 boots great). When any drive is first hot-plugged in to the card, the drive runs at SATA-I speed maximum about 120 MB/s. When rebooted or booted with a drive already attached, then the drives start running in the SATA-II speed! This computer can't achieve the SATA-II max sustained rate, but can go most of the way there. Unfortunately due to the computer's PCI bus constraint SATA-II won't copy files from one drive to another that better than SATA-I does.

Initial observations:
The 2SE4 PCI-X card doesn't play well with others, other PCI cards alongside it. I just operated without removing my other PCI cards, because I had nothing attached to them. The 2SE4 card needs the entire shared PCI "card cage" fed to it.

Large copy operations initiated in the Finder almost always cause system to freeze, but that's where the trouble ends. I found I could use Disk Utility to Restore disk image files stored on one HDD to write those contents to another SATA-II HDD. I could also Cmd-D Duplicate any file without any trouble.

Using "QuickBench" speedtest software, my SATA-II boot volumes were a new Seagate HDD hitting peak 210 MB/s read & peak 196.4 MB/s write, and, a SATA-III SSD hitting peak 201 MB/s read & peak 194.6 write. These are single drive units screaming on my G4, I remind u. Each one is faster than two SATA-I drives that are joined via striped-RAID. Btw two SATA-II drives joined in striped-RAID did not work, because my computer's drivers had no comprehension of that situation.

Need to see if I can make copy operations stop crashing, maybe by removing my other PCI cards or by Jumpering driveunits for SATA-II (or SATA-I) not their native SATA-III. Otherwise, it works good and is fun to use.

This SATA-II card on 33MHz PCI should have been done, because the failures are just the fault of incomplete driver software.

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Jumpers on the Kingston SSDs are NOT helping to govern speed. My 2xSSD RAID is still system-freezing during some big write operations. (...I'm done playing with SATA-II card in PowerMac G4, I'm back to "normal" with USB2 in PCI).

In conclusion, the SSD system freeze (intermittent) is the same as the 2009 Hitachi HDD system freeze, in which the Hitachi is not intermittent it freezes all the time when writing and can be fixed with its speed jumper. The SSDs don't have jumpers that can fix them. This is also the same system freeze I get with any drive on my SATA-II card when Finder-copying, in which I can avoid a crash by using Disk Utility Restore to do the copying. I just zeroed my 2xSSD RAID and tried updating its volumes with Finder copy : it froze (again, like so many times before). Then, I zeroed it again and updated its volumes this time via Disk Utility Restore and avoided that system freeze.

The Western Digital (Caviar) HDDs are the only ones becoming fixed with adding speed jumper. Do WD make SSDs which can be fixed the same way?? Isn't the name "Caviar" a small stab at Seagate, Caviar being an ultimate exploit of "the sea" ??

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

I stop using Apple software striped RAID for drive speed, and can no longer recommend software RAID when drives capable of maxing the SATA 150 bus are just now LOOKING better than RAID on my 1-core PowerMac G4. What changed my mind is I only now really inspected my best OS volume (heavily customized Tiger 10.4.11 Server) on an individual SSD to find it is behaving better than the 2xSSD striped RAID. I used to always only apply my best OS volume onto my best drive (the RAID) and assumed I was getting the best technique. But no.

The 2xSSD in striped RAID formation IS significantly faster than 1 SSD. But, the overhead for software-based RAID is too great, especially with 1 cpu. With software RAID, I was accessing storage a lot faster BUT at the expense of drastically slowing down the CPU while any RAID drive access took place. It turns out the SATA 150 MB/s bus limit is very good enough for Tiger, and the literal 200 MB/s RAID speed isn't beneficial enough to justify the software-RAID CPU drag. And the RAID speed advantage never applied when copying from one drive to another drive. Copying files was mostly SATA-I speed at best, even from one RAID to another RAID. Au revoir, software RAID.

muttztfz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Dec 2

I agree. SATA on a Power Mac is at the very high end speed limit anyway, overall and in general on this specific generation of Macs, so there is hardly need to make this even faster. And software RAID is hence not a good idea, as it will stress an already aged CPU even more, making the overall system speed drop and the user experience (the feel in look&feel) slower in the end.

BTW, I'm not using a PCI expansion card for my SATA SSDs, only a IDE-to-SATA adapter. Adding a card always gave me additional trouble such as incompatibilities. The one and only exception: a Power Mac G3 rev. 1 with the faulty CMD640 IDE controller, the only system ever in which I replaced the internal IDE bus with a ACARD UltraATA/133 controller which is detected as a SCSI controller in both classic Mac OS and Mac OS X. With this ACARD thing I never had any problems, but it's not SATA...

SkyCapt's picture
Offline
Joined: 2017 Jan 11

Good doing. I however'd hate to be without my external SATA (eSATA) and its ability to hot-plug and play storage units bare without some bridge in a sled acting as go-between. [note to connect power wires first, data wires second, and disconnect in reverse: disconnect data wires first, disconnect power wires last.]

My cards seemed great, and work the same in all OS 9-10.5 without adding any driver software. Seemed great, until this thread, of course...

Besides, my PMG4's native ATA ports are all busy doing other stuff. The painfully slow "ATA 33" port is running MorphOS with an SSD+bridge chip. My "ATA 66" connector has a bootable DVD writer, and my "ATA 100" has a bluray+bridge chip. I could go on about the MDD2003 ATA behavior.

The max length of an ATA ribbon cable is 18 inches, whenever the ribbon is gray and feels stiff/springy. The Mirror Door laserdrive cables come 22.5 inches, exceeding the maximum, so Apple uses a special black ribbon that feels limp, to overcome the 18" limit.

My PMG4's "ATA 100" is actually an "ATA 133" and my "ATA 66" is "ATA 133" as well. Only my "ATA 33" reflects its labellage. The iteration of motherboard previous to mine had one FW800 port, mine has that port removed. But the power behind the FW800 connector didn't vanish, the power lives on in the MDD2003 motherboard, through distributing 800 Mb/s = 100 MB/s in which 66 MB/s was applied to "ATA 66" to result in ATA 133, and 33 MB/s was applied to "ATA 100" to result in ATA 133 again. These connectors stayed mislabelled ATA 66 & ATA 100 in order to fit the narrative that MDD2003 is a clone of MDD2002.