If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
from what I understand serial ata is a single drive interface, initialy at 150mb/s.
ata100 and 133 have reached there limits, two fast ata133 drives on a single drive will be limited by the interface.
scsi is inherently a multiple drive interface, you can get 100mb/s out of RAID chain on a scsi 160 channel.
But that is not what high end scsi is about, its about the lowest latency's, high concurrent I/O's and and 24/7 365 days on large RAID(as in redundant) arrays, serial ATA won't be affecting that for a while.
Having said that, adaptec and whole bunch of storage companies are developing RAID controller cards for serial ATA devices. When they come to town, then you can say goodbye scsi as we know it today
Originally posted by Marshmallowman Having said that, adaptec and whole bunch of storage companies are developing RAID controller cards for serial ATA devices. When they come to town, then you can say goodbye scsi as we know it today
That's a mouthfull and I totally agree. Not to mention that those SATA RAID's are much closer than you think. Trust me
Dr. Mordrid
Dr. Mordrid ---------------------------- An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps
Two fast ATA133 drives will "max out" ATA100? ARE YOU HIGH ON CRACK!?!?!?!??
ATA100 has a maximum throughput of 100MB/sec.
The fastest drives in creation can't sustain 50MB/sec. drives like that just don't exist. Some push 40... MAYBE. I'm not talking about bursting here. Drives just aren't that fast. In fact, the newest drives have SLOWER sustained speeds due to their increased size.
Suffice it to say that while I like and appreciate Serial ATA it is hardly necessary at this point, and won't be for a while.
- Gurm
The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!
I'm the least you could do
If only life were as easy as you
I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
If only life were as easy as you
I would still get screwed
SATA will be here quite soon.
I have seen reviews of the SATA cards they use on Server systems.
Apparently, SATA is in use in some servers...
I am not quite sure is SATA has more than one disk on one cable, i think it is two disks per cable.
Also, SATA has much higher possibilities than U-ATA, they were talking of reaching speeds of 500mb/s and up.........
SCSI is not going anywhere in big servers. It's changing for sure, but not going away. They have announced a new spec (but I don't think it's finalized) called SAS (Serial Attached SCSI). It uses the same cables and connectors as SATA, but runs the SCSI protocol over it. Both products cater to totally different markets.
Really the only reason I'm looking forward to SATA is for the skinny cables. I hate ribbon cables (And no, rounded IDE cables don't qualify as skinny, they're too damn stiff, and the connectors are still big and bulky).
Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry Cox
Gurm, the fastest drive in production right now, the Seagate Cheeta X15-36LP does 60 MB/s to 45 MB/s in sustained transfer rate, of course this is a SCSI drive but drives go that fast.
CHHAS - that's ONE drive, and it's BRAND NEW. That technology won't be in IDE drives for a full year or more.
- Gurm
The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!
I'm the least you could do
If only life were as easy as you
I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
If only life were as easy as you
I would still get screwed
He he...
I should have saved the picture and the submitted it!
It was a picture comparing the ATA and SATA cable....
GURM:
I will say this again:
One drive might never be able to max out the ATA100 (ATA133is a horrible thing that should never have seen light) but that bandwidth is shared on two drives and the command signals.
So even if a drive only is able to send 25-35 (one of my old GXP does this easy)mb/s it will still use more bandwidth than that in reality as the command signals also go the same way.
Now imagine two drives on the same cable and you "might" get the picture!
If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.
Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."
You're telling me there's 30 MEGABYTES PER SECOND of command data? Sorry, man. There isn't.
- Gurm
The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!
I'm the least you could do
If only life were as easy as you
I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
If only life were as easy as you
I would still get screwed
What's wrong with ATA133? The address extension was necessary.
Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.
Comment