SATA 3G

[Rod Speed]

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
3 Gb SATA is for external raid cabinets.
Is that *your* opinion, or is that fact? What's so special
about an "external" raid cabinet? Are you telling us that 3GB SATA
precludes the use of drives installed within the computer itself?
3 Gb SATA does nothing for a single harddrive except for very
special applications that take advantage of the onboard cache.
I'd be inclined to go a step further and say that 3GB SATA is a
waste of space for practically everything.
So what does this mean? I just bought 2 Seagate 250gb 3GBs. Right
now I'm using them as data and storage drives, but was considering
getting another for a boot drive (all previous drives are ATA). Am i
wasting my time on 3GB?
Are they slower than 1.5? What's the reality here?
Don't worry. They may have a faster interface, but the drives
cannot profit from that by a huge margin. So don;t spend more on
3Gb speed than 1.5Gb speed. (Incidentially it is 3Gb, _not_ 3GB!)
Don't the specs indicate that 3G is twice the speed of regular of
regular SATA? It must be somewhat faster, don't you think. You seem to
be saying that 3G is the same speed as standard SATA. This doesn't
make logical sense. Is it really true? Is there no advantage to
upgrading to 3G? If so, what's all the hype and hoopla about??
For comparison, here is a spec for adapters that plug onto a modern
(pci type) motherboard
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/190
Note that if you plug in a 64 bit SATA adapter into a 66mhz 64 bit
slot (the best you can do) the thruput is only 533MB (bit, not
byte). Note that those specs are not for onboard chipsets eg:
builting SATA.
I would think the only benefit would be for a controller with cache
that can buffer up the data and then burst it out at 3GB (or receive
it at 3GB) [bits of course] If the bus was being shared amount
devices then a faster burst rate would free it up for other devices.

Pity that sata is one drive per cable.

Every drive has a cable, so?
Yes.

Not sure what you are getting at.

That since there is one drive per cable with sata, the cable
doesnt need to be able to do better than one drive can do.

The controller has to handle all the connections.

Irrelevant to the speed OVER THE CABLE.

if a controller has 8 SATA connections it must be able to handle transfer
to from 8 devices simultaneously.

Irrelevant to the speed OVER THE CABLE.

that could be disk-to-disk or even disk-to-tape.

Not with a PARTICULAR cable.

there are sata tapes on market.

Those are even slower than a hard drive, stupid.

you are bitpicking!

You are bullshitting.

 

[J. Clarke]

Don't the specs indicate that 3G is twice the speed of regular of regular
SATA?

Yes, they do.

It must be somewhat faster, don't you think.

The interface is, but the interface is not the bottleneck.

You seem to be saying
that 3G is the same speed as standard SATA.

In the real world it is.

This doesn't make logical
sense. Is it really true?
Yes.

Is there no advantage to upgrading to 3G?

None unless the disk itself is faster.

If so,
what's all the hype and hoopla about??

Money.

 

[Harkhof]

Yes, they do.


The interface is, but the interface is not the bottleneck.


In the real world it is.


None unless the disk itself is faster.


Money.

Nice to know the reality of the difference of the two (or, at least at this
point in time, lack thereof), but money doesn't seem to be the issue, at
least not for the 3 & 1.5 250GB Seagate HDs at newegg. In fact, the 3Gb is
$1 cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148111

Hark

 

[Peter]

Money.

Nice to know the reality of the difference of the two (or, at least at this
point in time, lack thereof), but money doesn't seem to be the issue, at
least not for the 3 & 1.5 250GB Seagate HDs at newegg. In fact, the 3Gb is
$1 cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148111

It is the money, because people think they are getting a better product (3
Gbps) and choose it over 1.5Gbps.
So those selling 1.5Gbps will loose.

 

[Rod Speed]

Nice to know the reality of the difference of the two (or, at least
at this point in time, lack thereof), but money doesn't seem to be
the issue, at least not for the 3 & 1.5 250GB Seagate HDs at newegg.
In fact, the 3Gb is $1 cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148111

Yes, its basically for the future and doesnt cost much in a drive.

 

[J. Clarke]

Nice to know the reality of the difference of the two (or, at least at
this point in time, lack thereof), but money doesn't seem to be the issue,
at least not for the 3 & 1.5 250GB Seagate HDs at newegg. In fact, the 3Gb
is $1 cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148111

But convincing someone who already has a perfectly adequate IDE drive that
SATA is "better" gets the sale of a disk drive and host adapter that would
not otherwise be sold.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Don't the specs indicate that 3G is twice the speed of regular of regular
SATA?
Yes.

It must be somewhat faster, don't you think.

No. No impact in practice, see below.

You seem to be saying that 3G is the same speed as standard
SATA. This doesn't make logical sense.

The _drive_ speed is the same. Of course the interface is
faster, but that does not matter at all here.

Is it really true? Is there
no advantage to upgrading to 3G? If so, what's all the hype and
hoopla about??

It is true. And the hoopla is called marketing. People fall for it
every time.

Let me give you an analogy: If a road supports up to 300mph (3Gb/s =
300 MB/s) but the fastest car you can get goes around 70mph (70 MB/s),
a road supporting 150mph (1.5Gb/s) would still be more than sufficient.

It never ceases to amaze me that the marketing people (= professional
liars) can get away with this time and again.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

If you have 5 disks in an array and each has 100GB platters you got your
500GB right there. I have seen systems that have 5000+ disks in an array.
Granted, you would not have that at home. They make really neat recording
devices though.

500GB/platter is significantly fater than 100GB/platter. You cannot
read from multiple platers in parallel.

You would use FC or 10GBE or the like to interface an array like this.
SATA2 has no place here.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

Nice to know the reality of the difference of the two (or, at least at this
point in time, lack thereof), but money doesn't seem to be the issue, at
least not for the 3 & 1.5 250GB Seagate HDs at newegg. In fact, the 3Gb is
$1 cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148111

Money is the issue. They want customers to belive that the
product has been significantly improoved and that they should
upgrade. Or not buy from the "slow" competition.

Arno

 

[Harkhof]

But convincing someone who already has a perfectly adequate IDE drive that
SATA is "better" gets the sale of a disk drive and host adapter that would
not otherwise be sold.

Gotcha. Marketing scam. For me, the reasons for converting to SATA (in one
machine) were more compelling than hoped for performance gains (not a
gamer). I had 5 drives (in addition to two optical drives) in one machine
(my flagship business sytem).

Converting to SATA allowed me to lose a controller, several large data
cables (even though they were rounded...still bulky and air restricting.)
and a couple of physical drive placements (I replaced 4 of the 5 drives of
varying capacities with 2 250GB SATAs. A 3rd is forthcoming) . The drives
which were removed from that machine go to back up enclosures, other
machines or just used with a USB2 to IDE cable.

Those tiny SATA cables are where my interests lie.

Thanks to all for the info.

Hark

 

[Z Man]

No. No impact in practice, see below.


The _drive_ speed is the same. Of course the interface is
faster, but that does not matter at all here.


It is true. And the hoopla is called marketing. People fall for it
every time.

Let me give you an analogy: If a road supports up to 300mph (3Gb/s =
300 MB/s) but the fastest car you can get goes around 70mph (70 MB/s),
a road supporting 150mph (1.5Gb/s) would still be more than sufficient.

It never ceases to amaze me that the marketing people (= professional
liars) can get away with this time and again.

That's an excellent example. You (and others in this venue) have saved me
from making a costly mistake. I will still purchase the Hitachi 7K500 hard
drives, but I now know that there is no need to upgrade my HP's onboard SATA
controller to a 3G. Thanks for putting things in such sharp perspective.

 

[Peter]

It never ceases to amaze me that the marketing people (= professional

liars) can get away with this time and again.

That only proves that buying masses are stupid. That's sad but true.

 

[Arno Wagner]

That's an excellent example.

Thank you!

You (and others in this venue) have saved me from making a costly
mistake. I will still purchase the Hitachi 7K500 hard drives, but I
now know that there is no need to upgrade my HP's onboard SATA
controller to a 3G. Thanks for putting things in such sharp
perspective.

You are welcome. Understanding todays computer hardware
characteristics is difficult enough without reality being
distorted by dishonest marketing.

Arno

 

[Peter]

500GB/platter is significantly fater than 100GB/platter. You cannot

read from multiple platers in parallel.

Fater? You didn't mean fatter?

You would use FC or 10GBE or the like to interface an array like this.
SATA2 has no place here.

Mostly multiple channel 2Gbps FC (which is not faster than SATA2, per port),
multiple 1 Gbit Ethernet or multiple 1 Gb/s iSCSI.
I didn't see 10GBE yet.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

That only proves that buying masses are stupid. That's sad but true.

Long live capitalism.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

500GB/platter is significantly fater than 100GB/platter.

You cannot read from multiple platers in parallel.

Of course you can, babblemouth.
They call it RAID. You may have heard of it.

You would use FC

Hardly makes a difference, speed wise.
Makes a difference if distance becomes a concern.

or 10GBE or the like to interface an array like this.

It doesn't matter what you use. Speed is probably not an issue here.
Most likely the drives are even spanned for sheer size, not speed.
Connecting a row of cabinets or rows of cabinets calls for an inter-
face that can span several meters and here SATA is not suitable.
This is where you would use FC.

SATA2 has no place here.

Of course it has. Perfectly suitable for combining seve-
ral rack mounted arrays into a larger array in a cabinet.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

It is the money, because people think they are getting a better product (3
Gbps) and choose it over 1.5Gbps.

So those selling 1.5Gbps will loose.

So actually they shoot themselfs in the foot if they make both.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Money is the issue. They want customers to belive that the
product has been significantly improoved and that they should
upgrade. Or not buy from the "slow" competition.

Mindless conspiricy theorie.
The babblebot is on drugs again.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Is that *your* opinion, or is that fact?

What's so special about an "external" raid cabinet?

What, no one *wants* to clue Stinkie in or just no one *capable*
of clueing Stinkie in?
Normally some babblebot would have jumped at the opportunity.

Are you telling us that 3GB SATA precludes the
use of drives installed within the computer itself?

No idea where that came from.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Fater? You didn't mean fatter?
"faster"

Mostly multiple channel 2Gbps FC (which is not faster than SATA2, per port),
multiple 1 Gbit Ethernet or multiple 1 Gb/s iSCSI.
I didn't see 10GBE yet.

Speed is not the primary problem with SATA2. But SATA2 has a 1m cable
lenght limit. These seem to be some products supporting 2m cable
length, but they seem to operate outside of the standard. Anyways,
even 2m is not enough for data-center usage.

FC is 30 meters with copper and several km with fibre.
Similar for GbE.

Arno