SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by William L. » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:29:25


Sir:



I am under the impression that SATA is a serial version of ATA, a
parallel implementation of ATA is IDE? Since no hard drive can move
data faster than IDE can deliver it, SATA advantages are just marketing
hoopla, no?
--
Bill
Thanks a Million!
 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Bob Eage » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:37:29

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:29:25 UTC, "William L. Hartzell"




No.
--
Bob Eager

 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Wayn » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:48:39


Bob, you could of at least provided a link :-)

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Wayne
--
Registered Linux user #375994
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Bob Eage » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:49:26


It's early, and my breakfast was ready! I was trying to find something a
bit more reliable than Wikipedia.

(sitting here on my IBM 206m with 3Gb/s SATA drives...)

--
Bob Eager
 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Seymour » Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:21:15

In <45ecfc34$0$16735$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, on 03/05/2007
at 11:29 PM, "William L. Hartzell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:


Not if it can deliver data concurrently from more drives than parallel
IDE. Not if it has fewer configuration hassles.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT < http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Mat Nieuwe » Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:07:04


:>Sir:
:>

:>> In < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, on 03/05/2007
:>> at 04:28 AM, "Doug Bissett" <dougb007! XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:
:>>
:>>> Don't. IDE CD, and DVD, drives are just fine, and, they are
:>>> available,
:>>
:>> With their attendant master versus slave issues.
:>>
:>>> SATA is really the only option for new hard drives, and, it seems
:>>> to work well, as long as you use the latest Dani drivers
:>>> (highly recomended anyway).
:>
:>I am under the impression that SATA is a serial version of ATA, a
:>parallel implementation of ATA is IDE? Since no hard drive can move
:>data faster than IDE can deliver it, SATA advantages are just marketing
:>hoopla, no?

Serial ATA is (as transfer mechanism) faster than parallel ATA. SATA2 is
specced for 3 Gbit/s (375 Mbyte/s), PATA max 133 Mbyte/s . If you transfer
from the cache of the disk (frequently 8M or now nowadays) that makes a
difference. I think I read a short while ago that Fujitsu has a new drive
which gets well above the 1.5 G/s transfer speed of SATA1 . Of course, from
the disk platter you're not getting that speed (70 Mbyte/s or so on fast
drives).
Besides, SATA2 has command queuing, and (with a different connector and
cable) eSata (external sata), allowing external drives up to 2m away.

Mat Nieuwenhoven
 
 
 

SATA or IDE SATA or SCSI?

Post by Daniela En » Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:58:32

at Nieuwenhoven wrote:

Which are basically none.


The parallel version of ATA is PATA. IDE, EIDE ore the like are
obsolete (marketing) names.


Pardon? About every current-generation disk can deliver data faster than
ATA-1/2/3/4 specced PATA interfaces can handle, and those cover the
better part of the lifetime of PATA.


SATA is an implementation of ATA with a completely different physical
layer, which happens to be faster than the one used by PATA . The SATA
physical layer is so good that the SCSI ANSI committe (T10) (almost
instantly) dropped further development of faster parallel interfaces,
rendered the parallel interfaces obsolete and picked the SATA phy
instead: SAS was born.


There is no such thing as SATA2. For details have a look at
http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp. SATA spec 2.0 doesn't even
imply 3.0Gb/s wire speed. And, btw, 1.5Gb/s translates into 150MB/s,
3.0Gb/s translates into 300MB/s due to the 8B10B coding at the physical
layer.

Besides the speed at the physical interface layer one has to take the IO
bus limitations into account. With regular PCI you get hardly anything
faster than 100MB/s. This is the reason why the professional world has
moved on to PCI eXtended (PCI-X). On desktops (and soon workstations and
servers as well) PCI is mostly obsolete and replaced by PCI express
(PCIe) which has got 250MB/s each in both directions concurrently in its
slowest implementation (PCIe x1).


Almost any modern SATA disk can go faster than 1.5GB/s during host <->
disk cache transfers. From my machine here:

Controller:1 Port:A400 IRQ:0B Status:OK BusMaster Scatter/Gather
NVidia nForce SATA host (10DE:037F rev:A2) on PCI 0:5.0
Unit:0 Status:OK SMS:16 LBA BusMaster 3.0GBit/s BPB
Model:ST3320620AS 3.AAC

Hard disk 1: 255 sides, 38913 cylinders, 63 sectors per track = 305242 MB
Drive cache/bus transfer rate: 194129 k/sec
Data transfer rate on cylinder 0 : 77009 k/sec


Not to mention port multipliers, which make - in conjunction with eSATA
- really interesting external storage solutions!

Ciao,
Dani