Prev: PartitionMagic crash in data movement phase
Next: Problems with Adaptec ASH-1233 IDE adapter
From: Folkert Rienstra on 4 Jul 2005 09:30
Business slow, is it, Duncan?

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com
> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>
>
> Odie
From: Folkert Rienstra on 4 Jul 2005 09:38
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:368ye.385811$cg1.255517(a)bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Odie Ferrous" odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C9039F.24E42051(a)hotmail.com...
> > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > > "Odie Ferrous" odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com...
> > > > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > > > speed between the two?
> > >
> > > Rephrase your question.
> >
> > I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
> > to facetious comments.

But wouldn't 'know' you as we know you, Duncan.
What you know and what you don't know.
Why that business signature is in the bottom of your post, for instance.

> >
> >
> > > I suspect you realize how naive it is on the surface. Are you just trolling?

You know he does.

> > > Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
> > > bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much
> > > to do with the speed of a HD itself.
> > >
> > > > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > > > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
> > >
> > > There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
> > > find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
> > > to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
> >
> >
> > I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive being
> > on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300 controller.
>
> It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what
> demonstrated your naivety,

So what is it, he's trolling or he's naive.

> Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same
> performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300 controller
> in single user workstation usage.

Currently.
And it doesn't make a bloody difference whether it is single user workstation
or server usage. That is decided by other SATA-2 features.

> SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't relevant.

It should be.

> Particular HD models are relevant.

It shouldn't be. Not yet.

>
> > I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?

You mean indecision, don't you?

> >
> > You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,

One doesn't need to. It's no different to IDE and SCSI, even when
SATA is a point to point interface and IDE and SCSI are not.
No current drive can exhaust 100MB/s useable bandwidth.

> > so please don't bother commenting.
>
> Obviously the opposite is true. Check out some benchmarks.
From: J. Clarke on 4 Jul 2005 10:08
Odie Ferrous wrote:

> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?

It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
move data from the buffer to memory. It is no doubt possible to contrive a
usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
than an SATA I drive, but in the real world performance is limited by the
number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of
SATA I.

The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
even there the difference is second-order.

The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
it is "almost as fast as SCSI".

> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
From: Odie Ferrous on 4 Jul 2005 11:43
Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> Business slow, is it, Duncan?
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com
> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > speed between the two?
> >
> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
> >
> >
> > Odie

Hi, Folkert.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
From: Eric Gisin on 4 Jul 2005 11:48
Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com...
> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: PartitionMagic crash in data movement phase
Next: Problems with Adaptec ASH-1233 IDE adapter