SATA II Drive

[Steven Liburd]

I know that there is, in theory, a performance boost to be gained by
SATA II as opposed to UDMA 133, but I'd like to know if that boost is
being seen by those that have drives of this type. Even subjective
answers (it does/does not feel faster) will be appreciated. I'm about to
put together a Linux (SuSE 9.3) system, and I'm wondering if getting a
motherboard that supports SATA II is worth the extra expense. TIA

==steven

 

[Marc Hulsebosch]

I know that there is, in theory, a performance boost to be gained by
SATA II as opposed to UDMA 133, but I'd like to know if that boost is
being seen by those that have drives of this type. Even subjective
answers (it does/does not feel faster) will be appreciated. I'm about to
put together a Linux (SuSE 9.3) system, and I'm wondering if getting a
motherboard that supports SATA II is worth the extra expense. TIA

==steven

SATA II is not the name of a standard, but of a group of engineers that
worked on extra SATA features. Some of those features (such as NCQ) are
quite useful. The difference is just a few percent. So motherboards
supporting that are nice, but spending much more money on one is not
very useful, other components have more benefits of that money.

Marc

 

[Steven Liburd]

SATA II is not the name of a standard, but of a group of engineers that
worked on extra SATA features. Some of those features (such as NCQ) are
quite useful. The difference is just a few percent. So motherboards
supporting that are nice, but spending much more money on one is not
very useful, other components have more benefits of that money.

Marc

True, I read up on it while I was waiting for a reply. What I got from
their web site:

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

"The first step toward a better understanding of SATA is to know that
SATA II is not the brand name for SATA’s 3Gb/s data transfer rate,
but the name of the organization formed to author the SATA
specifications. The group has since changed names, to the Serial ATA
International Organization, or SATA-IO.

The 3Gb/s capability is just one of many defined by the former SATA
II committee, but because it is among the most prominent features,
3Gb/s has become synonymous with SATA II. Hence, the source of the
confusion."

So, it would seem that since everyone was getting it wrong, they decided
to let it go (the people have spoken!)

I did find a review that suggests that if I was going to spend the money
it would be better to get a 10000 RPM drive as opposed to a 3Gb/s drive.

Thanks for your reply!

==steven

 

[Marc Hulsebosch]

True, I read up on it while I was waiting for a reply. What I got from
their web site:

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

"The first step toward a better understanding of SATA is to
know that SATA II is not the brand name for SATA’s 3Gb/s
data transfer rate, but the name of the organization formed
to author the SATA specifications. The group has since changed
names, to the Serial ATA International Organization, or
SATA-IO.

The 3Gb/s capability is just one of many defined by the
former SATA II committee, but because it is among the most
prominent features, 3Gb/s has become synonymous with SATA
II. Hence, the source of the confusion."

So, it would seem that since everyone was getting it wrong, they decided
to let it go (the people have spoken!)

I did find a review that suggests that if I was going to spend the money
it would be better to get a 10000 RPM drive as opposed to a 3Gb/s drive.

Thanks for your reply!

==steven

Out of all SATA II features, 3 Gb may indeed be the least useful one: If
you think of the fact that a WD Raptor (a 10000 RPM drive) is capable of
66MBps, how useful would 300MBps be?

Marc

 

[Cuzman]

Marc Hulsebosch wrote:

" SATA II is not the name of a standard, but of a group of engineers
that worked on extra SATA features. Some of those features (such as NCQ)
are quite useful. "


But NCQ was on 1.5Gb/s drives before SATA-II arrived.

http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,645,00.html
http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,646,00.html
http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,647,00.html

....and that's just Seagate. I can't be botherered to look up the rest.

 

[Marc Hulsebosch]

Marc Hulsebosch wrote:

" SATA II is not the name of a standard, but of a group of engineers
that worked on extra SATA features. Some of those features (such as NCQ)
are quite useful. "


But NCQ was on 1.5Gb/s drives before SATA-II arrived.

http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,645,00.html

http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,646,00.html

http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,647,00.html


...and that's just Seagate. I can't be botherered to look up the rest.

*This is were a big guess begins* Could that be a version of TCQ (a SCSI
technology) that has been renamed to NCQ after the SATA II group
released it? *This is where a big guess ends*

Marc

 

[BlastUK]

the speed comes from the drive buffer.. so it'll prolly be a boost at
the start of a read then regular speed afterwards.. not worth the money