SATA and ATA
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Continued problem with the ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage
Next: ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage Manual
From: Odie Ferrous on 9 Apr 2005 14:51 "a.h." wrote: > > What technical differences are between SATA and ATA? SATA sucks. Marketing ploy. Crappy connectors. Absolutely NO increase in performance in the real world. Is that technical enough? Odie -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
From: Derek Baker on 9 Apr 2005 15:10 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message news:d3974b02ahn(a)news3.newsguy.com... > Derek Baker wrote: > >> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message >> news:d390360230v(a)news3.newsguy.com... >>> Derek Baker wrote: >>> >>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:d38n9m118o1(a)news2.newsguy.com... >>>>> a.h. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What technical differences are between SATA and ATA? >>>>> >>>>> Mostly hype. >>>>> >>>>> SATA sends data one bit at a time down a single pair and receives it >>>>> the >>>>> same way, vs 8 bits in parallel for PATA. The SATA interface has a >>>>> transfer rate of 150 or 300 MB/sec vs 133 for the fastest version of >>>>> PATA, which is moot because there are no drives that can fill even a >>>>> 100 MB/sec channel. >>>> >>>> True for a single drive, but PATA takes two per cable. A couple of >>>> Raptors >>>> @ 70MB/sec each would we restricted by ATA-133. >>> >>> (a) you're not _required_ to use 2 per cable >> >> No, but you might have to. >> >>> (b) that 72 MB/sec is for sequential transfers on the outermost zone. >>> In >>> the real world you'd hardly ever see that transfer rate even with an >>> infinite-speed interface. >> >> True. Though the Raptor's already at 61 MB/sec average sustained. > > Which means sequential transfers. Not random access, which is what > usually > happens in the real world. Agree with usually. Would be different for someone pushing really big files around. When I upgrade soon to SATA drives, I'm not expecting any perceptible performance increase, though the thin cables will be nice. >>>>>SATA uses a thin cable with connectors only slighly more fragile >>>>> than DDT-affected eggs, PATA uses a wide ribbon cable with relatively >>>>> durable connectors. SATA is specified to support hot-swapping of >>>>> drives >>>>> (in practice that doesn't work too well yet) while PATA does not. One >>>>> can buy 10,000 RPM drives with PATA interfaces but not with SATA. >>>>> >>>>> That pretty much covers it I think. If you want details of signal >>>>> levels >>>>> and encodings and command sets and whatnot you'll need to dig up a >>>>> copy >>>>> of the specs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Derek
From: Nick on 9 Apr 2005 15:13 >> Actually, there are 16 data bit on a PATA cable. >> Transmiting data in parallel is much more complicated than in serial. >> That's why Sata is faster. > >Utterly mangled. > What ? The 16 bits ? Or the serial communication ?
From: Derek Baker on 9 Apr 2005 15:12 "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4258244F.B7BF09AD(a)hotmail.com... > "a.h." wrote: >> >> What technical differences are between SATA and ATA? > > SATA sucks. No, but not radically better than PATA. > Marketing ploy. > Crappy connectors. > > Absolutely NO increase in performance in the real world. True, but increases headroom for the future. Agree that change to 300 MB/sec unnecessary. > Is that technical enough? > > > Odie -- Derek
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2005 15:47
Nick <no-email(a)published.nul> wrote in message news:89ag51dtnjk5r91ugaieghptgv5igued08(a)4ax.com... >>> Actually, there are 16 data bit on a PATA cable. >>> Transmiting data in parallel is much more complicated than in serial. >>> That's why Sata is faster. >> Utterly mangled. > What ? The 16 bits ? Or the serial communication ? The >>> Transmiting data in parallel is much more complicated than in serial. >>> That's why Sata is faster. |