SATA Question: Need RAID to benefit?

[mahadragon]

From what I gather SATA (I) allows transfer speeds of up to 1.5gbps
transfer speed but this is internal so does that mean that a user will
only benefit from SATA if they use their hard drives in a RAID
configuration?

Right now I'm just using old funky 80gig and 20gig hard drives from IBM
(IDE). I have a new mobo which supports SATA and RAID and all that. If
I buy a new hard drive that supports RAID (but don't plan on using
RAID) do I still need to plug in the SATA power connectors and all
that?

Sorry if I sound like a newb...but I'm a newb. =O

Steven Q

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

From what I gather SATA (I) allows transfer speeds of up to 1.5gbps
transfer speed but this is internal so does that mean that a user will only
benefit from SATA if they use their hard drives in a RAID configuration?

Not even then.

Right now I'm just using old funky 80gig
and 20gig hard drives from IBM (IDE).

Hope you have the data that matters backed up properly...

I have a new mobo which supports SATA and RAID
and all that. If I buy a new hard drive that supports
RAID (but don't plan on using RAID) do I still need to
plug in the SATA power connectors and all that?

No, you dont need to, but SATA drives have more future.

Sorry if I sound like a newb...but I'm a newb. =O

Wish you hadnt jumped out of that closet quite so
enthusiastically, there are clearly children reading in here.

 

[Arno Wagner]

transfer speed but this is internal so does that mean that a user will
only benefit from SATA if they use their hard drives in a RAID
configuration?

No. They will never benefit from it with disks that cannot deliever the
data rate. Thet is the interface transfer speed, the highest number
the drive supports. It is a bit like h=givint the power of a stereo
as the highest wattage its power cord supports, i.e. mostly meaningless.

Right now I'm just using old funky 80gig and 20gig hard drives from IBM
(IDE).

Good luck. You know these keep dying?

I have a new mobo which supports SATA and RAID and all that. If
I buy a new hard drive that supports RAID (but don't plan on using
RAID) do I still need to plug in the SATA power connectors and all
that?

There are no harddrives that ''support RAID'', although WD
currently tries to brainwash its customers into believing there
are. You can do RAID with any HDD.

Sorry if I sound like a newb...but I'm a newb. =O

Indeed. It will get better over time.

Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

No. They will never benefit from it with disks that cannot deliever the
data rate. Thet is the interface transfer speed, the highest number
the drive supports. It is a bit like h=givint the power of a stereo
as the highest wattage its power cord supports, i.e. mostly meaningless.


Good luck. You know these keep dying?


There are no harddrives that ''support RAID'', although WD
currently tries to brainwash its customers into believing there
are. You can do RAID with any HDD.

Actually, some WD models do have a track record for having trouble with RAID
controllers--rather than just fixing the problem WD decided to have two
product lines, one fixed and one not. I suspect that this reflects some
kind of turf battle within the company.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno Wagner wrote:

Actually, some WD models do have a track record for having trouble with RAID
controllers--rather than just fixing the problem WD decided to have two
product lines, one fixed and one not. I suspect that this reflects some
kind of turf battle within the company.

O.k., that explains it.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Which is not any faster than Ultra133.

Or U133 alike ...

if they use their hard drives in a RAID configuration?

So no.
RAID0 has the same effect on IDE as well as SATA. Or SCSI.

Right now I'm just using old funky 80gig and 20gig hard drives from IBM
(IDE). I have a new mobo which supports SATA and RAID and all that.
If I buy a new

hard drive that supports RAID

There is no such thing.

(but don't plan on using RAID) do I still need to plug in the SATA power
connectors and all that?

Yes, drives usually run alot better with power supplied.

Sorry if I sound like a newb...but I'm a newb. =O

I think you give 'newbs' a bad name.

 

[Jim]

transfer speed but this is internal so does that mean that a user will
only benefit from SATA if they use their hard drives in a RAID
configuration?

It's the "interface" that's been improved, SATA is a faster "interface" than
the prior technology, IDE. In the end, if the HD can't read/write as fast
as that new interface allows, the fact the interface provides more bandwidth
is (for all intents and purposes) moot. It's like being given access to the
Motor Speedway, then bringing your stock Ford to the track. Doesn't matter
how "fast" the track is if you're still driving a clunker on it

Except for WD Raptors, most SATA drives today are nothing more than the old
IDE drive (mechanically), but w/ the new SATA "interface". And most
non-Raptor SATA and IDE HDs today are lucky if they can obtain 40-50MB/sec
(avg.). IOW, they can't even saturate the old ATA66 interface, let's alone
ATA100, ATA133, or the new SATA (150). Until the mechanics of SATA drives
improve substantially, most of the benefits of SATA are cosmetic.

But ppl will use RAID0 (stripping) to take advantage of the increased
bandwidth of SATA. By making two or more HDs work in parallel,
theoretically you can read/write more data over a given period of time, and
thus use the SATA interface more efficiently. Of course, RAID0 has some
negatives, like the greater risk of data loss, since if one drive fails, the
whole array is typically lost. But even in this case, using non-Raptor SATA
or IDE drives will not exceed the capacity of ATA100. In order to REALLY
take advantage of the SATA interface today, you'd need to use 2 x WD SATA
Raptors in RAID0. In this case, you'd probably exceed 100MB/sec of
throughput. Of course, it's an expensive proposition compared to IDE, but
for those looking for the ultimate, it's an option.

Right now I'm just using old funky 80gig and 20gig hard drives from IBM
(IDE). I have a new mobo which supports SATA and RAID and all that. If
I buy a new hard drive that supports RAID (but don't plan on using
RAID) do I still need to plug in the SATA power connectors and all
that?

There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID". You either have
a "motherboard" that supports RAID, or add-on PCI controller that supports
RAID. A HD is completely unaware that it exists within a RAID array, so ANY
HD will work, as long as it has the same interface as the mobo or PCI
controller (i.e., SATA or IDE).

And yes, you need to use the SATA power connector if you use a SATA drive
since that is, well..., how it gets it's power!

Jim

 

[J. Clarke]

It's the "interface" that's been improved, SATA is a faster "interface"
than
the prior technology, IDE. In the end, if the HD can't read/write as fast
as that new interface allows, the fact the interface provides more
bandwidth
is (for all intents and purposes) moot. It's like being given access to
the
Motor Speedway, then bringing your stock Ford to the track. Doesn't
matter how "fast" the track is if you're still driving a clunker on it

Except for WD Raptors, most SATA drives today are nothing more than the
old
IDE drive (mechanically), but w/ the new SATA "interface". And most
non-Raptor SATA and IDE HDs today are lucky if they can obtain 40-50MB/sec
(avg.). IOW, they can't even saturate the old ATA66 interface, let's
alone
ATA100, ATA133, or the new SATA (150). Until the mechanics of SATA drives
improve substantially, most of the benefits of SATA are cosmetic.

But ppl will use RAID0 (stripping) to take advantage of the increased
bandwidth of SATA. By making two or more HDs work in parallel,
theoretically you can read/write more data over a given period of time,
and
thus use the SATA interface more efficiently.

???? Each SATA drive is on a separate channel. Running RAID 0 doesn't
"take advantage of the increased bandwidth of SATA".

Of course, RAID0 has some
negatives, like the greater risk of data loss, since if one drive fails,
the
whole array is typically lost. But even in this case, using non-Raptor
SATA
or IDE drives will not exceed the capacity of ATA100. In order to REALLY
take advantage of the SATA interface today, you'd need to use 2 x WD SATA
Raptors in RAID0. In this case, you'd probably exceed 100MB/sec of
throughput. Of course, it's an expensive proposition compared to IDE, but
for those looking for the ultimate, it's an option.


There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID".

There are, however, hard drives that break when installed in a RAID.

You either
have a "motherboard" that supports RAID, or add-on PCI controller that
supports
RAID. A HD is completely unaware that it exists within a RAID array, so
ANY HD will work, as long as it has the same interface as the mobo or PCI
controller (i.e., SATA or IDE).

Except for certain Western Digital models.

And yes, you need to use the SATA power connector if you use a SATA drive
since that is, well..., how it gets it's power!

Many SATA drives have both SATA and molex power connectors.

 

[Rod Speed]

It's the "interface" that's been improved, SATA is a faster
"interface" than the prior technology, IDE. In the end, if the HD
can't read/write as fast as that new interface allows, the fact the
interface provides more bandwidth is (for all intents and purposes)
moot. It's like being given access to the Motor Speedway, then
bringing your stock Ford to the track. Doesn't matter how "fast" the
track is if you're still driving a clunker on it

Except for WD Raptors, most SATA drives today are nothing more than
the old IDE drive (mechanically), but w/ the new SATA "interface".
And most non-Raptor SATA and IDE HDs today are lucky if they can
obtain 40-50MB/sec (avg.). IOW, they can't even saturate the old
ATA66 interface, let's alone ATA100, ATA133, or the new SATA (150).
Until the mechanics of SATA drives improve substantially, most of the
benefits of SATA are cosmetic.

But ppl will use RAID0 (stripping) to take advantage of the increased
bandwidth of SATA. By making two or more HDs work in parallel,
theoretically you can read/write more data over a given period of
time, and thus use the SATA interface more efficiently. Of course,
RAID0 has some negatives, like the greater risk of data loss, since
if one drive fails, the whole array is typically lost. But even in
this case, using non-Raptor SATA or IDE drives will not exceed the
capacity of ATA100. In order to REALLY take advantage of the SATA
interface today, you'd need to use 2 x WD SATA Raptors in RAID0. In
this case, you'd probably exceed 100MB/sec of throughput. Of course,
it's an expensive proposition compared to IDE, but for those looking
for the ultimate, it's an option.

There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID".
You either have a "motherboard" that supports RAID, or
add-on PCI controller that supports RAID.

Or RAID is done entirely in software, no RAID specific hardware at all.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

It's the "interface" that's been improved, SATA is a faster "interface" than
the prior technology, IDE.

No, it's not. Newer extensions to SATA are.

In the end, if the HD can't read/write as fast as that new interface allows, the
fact the interface provides more bandwidth is (for all intents and purposes) moot.

There is no one single drive, with one single speed, clueless. The interface has to sup-
port all current drives and some forseeable future ones with all their various speeds.
And there can be SATA external RAID arrays too.
SATA is not only a single drive interface.

It's like being given access to the Motor Speedway, then bringing your stock
Ford to the track. Doesn't matter how "fast" the track is if you're still driving
a clunker on it

The track was built to also accomodate Ferraris.

Except for WD Raptors, most SATA drives today are nothing more than the old
IDE drive (mechanically), but w/ the new SATA "interface".

The raptors are beaten already by some of the newest 7200rpm drives.

And most non-Raptor SATA and IDE HDs today are lucky if they can obtain
40-50MB/sec (avg.).

Clueless. Seagate Barracuda8/9 are as fast as Raptors now.

IOW, they can't even saturate the old ATA66 interface, let's alone
ATA100, ATA133, or the new SATA (150).

Until the mechanics of SATA drives improve substantially,
most of the benefits of SATA are cosmetic.

Nope. SATA has quite some overhead. You won't get anywhere near the 150MB/s.
A forthcoming 15k Raptor may well use up all SATA150's available bandwidth.

But ppl will use RAID0 (stripping) to take advantage of the increased
bandwidth of SATA.

Not without extra hardware they don't. They'll just use more SATA ports.

By making two or more HDs work in parallel, theoretically you can
read/write more data over a given period of time, and thus use the
SATA interface more efficiently.

Over a port multiplier or external raid controller.
That's not exactly efficient, price wise.

Of course, RAID0 has some negatives, like the greater risk of data
loss, since if one drive fails, the whole array is typically lost.

But even in this case, using non-Raptor SATA
or IDE drives will not exceed the capacity of ATA100.

Neither will Raptors because you won't use 2 drives per channel cq Port.

In order to REALLY take advantage of the SATA interface today,
you'd need to use 2 x WD SATA Raptors in RAID0.

Over a port multiplier. SATA only takes one drive per port directly.

In this case, you'd probably exceed 100MB/sec of throughput.

With 70MB/s per Raptor, of course it will.

Of course, it's an expensive proposition compared to IDE,
but for those looking for the ultimate, it's an option.

If the Barras are available in IDE so will they.

There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID". You either have
a "motherboard" that supports RAID, or add-on PCI controller that supports
RAID.

A HD is completely unaware that it exists within a RAID array,

Until it fails to read sectors in time.

so ANY HD will work, as long as it has the same interface as the mobo or PCI
controller (i.e., SATA or IDE).

There is more to that than that.

And yes, you need to use the SATA power connector if you use a SATA drive
since that is, well..., how it gets it's power!

Not if it has a standard molex as well.

 

[Jim]

Happy Holidays!

Jim

No, it's not. Newer extensions to SATA are.
purposes) moot.

There is no one single drive, with one single speed, clueless. The interface has to sup-
port all current drives and some forseeable future ones with all their various speeds.
And there can be SATA external RAID arrays too.
SATA is not only a single drive interface.


The track was built to also accomodate Ferraris.


The raptors are beaten already by some of the newest 7200rpm drives.


Clueless. Seagate Barracuda8/9 are as fast as Raptors now.



Nope. SATA has quite some overhead. You won't get anywhere near the 150MB/s.
A forthcoming 15k Raptor may well use up all SATA150's available bandwidth.

Not without extra hardware they don't. They'll just use more SATA ports.


Over a port multiplier or external raid controller.
That's not exactly efficient, price wise.



Neither will Raptors because you won't use 2 drives per channel cq Port.


Over a port multiplier. SATA only takes one drive per port directly.


With 70MB/s per Raptor, of course it will.


If the Barras are available in IDE so will they.



Until it fails to read sectors in time.


There is more to that than that.


Not if it has a standard molex as well.

 

[Peter]

And yes, you need to use the SATA power connector if you use a SATA
drive

Many SATA drives have both SATA and molex power connectors.

Or use Molex to SATA power adapter cable.

 

[Arno Wagner]

news:[email protected]... [...]
There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID". You either have
a "motherboard" that supports RAID, or add-on PCI controller that supports
RAID.

Software RAID (done by the OS) can also qwork quite well, depending on
the implemenmtation.

A HD is completely unaware that it exists within a RAID array, so ANY
HD will work, as long as it has the same interface as the mobo or PCI
controller (i.e., SATA or IDE).

Or for software RAID, "...is a block device/HDD-like device...".

And yes, you need to use the SATA power connector if you use a SATA drive
since that is, well..., how it gets it's power!

;-)=)

Arno

 

[Peter]

There's no such thing as a "hard drive that supports RAID". You either
have

Software RAID (done by the OS) can also qwork quite well, depending on
the implemenmtation.


Or for software RAID, "...is a block device/HDD-like device...".

There were rumors that hard drives designed for RAID should have much
shorter disk recovery time. That allows RAID to pass failing operation to
another disk quickly, without slowing a whole system down.
In consumer drives that recovery time can be painfully long.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There were rumors that hard drives designed for RAID should have much
shorter disk recovery time.

Should give up earlier on retries. According to WD wisdom, Raid
controllers drop drives if they don't come back within 8 seconds.

That allows RAID to pass failing operation to
another disk quickly, without slowing a whole system down.

It allows them to not drop drives at all unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Happy Holidays!

Say hello to Arnie for us after you've stuck your head in the sand.

Jim

[snip]

 

[Arno Wagner]

There were rumors that hard drives designed for RAID should have much
shorter disk recovery time. That allows RAID to pass failing operation to
another disk quickly, without slowing a whole system down.
In consumer drives that recovery time can be painfully long.

If the drive needs long to recover, it is my opinion that it should be
regarded as faulty and kicked from the array. The same if it returns
fast but with an error. So this does not help.

Apparently this rumour was started by WD, since WD seems to have
disks so unreliable that recovery becomes an issue.

Arno

 

[Jim]

Wow, why all the hostility? I've been on numerous NGs, but I've never seen
anything quite like this one between you and Rod Speed. It's like this NG
is your own private "turf", you're like trolls guarding the bridge. Anyone
dares to provide their own comments, and you swing down to snipe, slashing
and cutting anyone else up who dares to comment, not even challenge you,
just comment! Lighten up, just add your comments and move on.

Btw, did I at least get my name right in the post?

Must be thrilling to be married to you. Is this how you would respond to
your spouse, even if they were mistaken? A friend? A collegue? Good
grief, I just don't get it, it's as if you get some thrill, fill some void,
by having the ability to ANONYMOUSLY slam everyone who dares to comment.
How brave of you. Truth is, you wouldn't dare talk to anyone BUT someone in
this forum with this kind of hostility, lest you end up unmarried,
friendless, and without a job. Suggestion: find a good twelve step program,
they can work wonders for your problems.

Fortunately, Outlook Express filters can make you, Rod Speed, and similar
trolls disappear, POOF, never to be heard from again (so no need to respond,
I'll never see it).

Jim

Happy Holidays!

Say hello to Arnie for us after you've stuck your head in the sand.

Jim

[snip]

 

[Rod Speed]

If the drive needs long to recover, it is my opinion that it
should be regarded as faulty and kicked from the array.

Depends on the array. Not a good idea with RAID0

And not necessarily a good idea if the drive goes to quite a bit
of trouble to get the data out of the sector that is going bad
and spares it when it can get the data back after retrying.

The same if it returns fast but with an error. So this does not help.

It aint as black and white as that.

Apparently this rumour was started by WD,

Nope, someone else did it before WD.

since WD seems to have disks so unreliable
that recovery becomes an issue.

Or realises that whats best for drives in RAID arrays
isnt necessarily what's best with drives that arent.

Yes, it would make more sense to allow that to be
configured instead of having two different firmware models.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Wow, why all the hostility?

You have to ask?
You, a compulsive topposter with a huge urge to rant without knowing what about?
Did you even bother to check about all the things that you were wrong about?
Of course not. You don't even proofread your posts, can't bother to setup
your newsclient properly.

I've been on numerous NGs, but I've never seen
anything quite like this one between you

and Rod Speed.

I consider you to be on a same level as Roddles. Just as bad.
Roddles seems to be capable of learning though even if it doesn't
always show. No such signs with you with your ostrich attitude.

It's like this NG is your own private "turf",

you're like trolls guarding the bridge.

Well, at least you got that half right.

Anyone dares to provide their own comments, and you swing down to snipe, slashing
and cutting anyone else up who dares to comment, not even challenge you,

just comment!

Rant about things they don't know about, just propagating old wifes tales.
And you never comment, you tell stories on top of posts.

Lighten up, just add your comments and move on.

Let's see how you follow your own advice .......... Oops.

Btw, did I at least get my name right in the post?

Must be thrilling to be married to you. Is this how you would respond to
your spouse, even if they were mistaken? A friend? A collegue? Good
grief, I just don't get it, it's as if you get some thrill, fill some void, by
having the ability to ANONYMOUSLY slam everyone who dares to comment.

So what's your excuse to spend time here.

How brave of you.

You have gall. Who is the one here with a nym and no reply address.

Truth is, you wouldn't dare talk to anyone BUT someone in

And now you possess the truth too. You are rich.

this forum with this kind of hostility,

Soft healers, stinking wounds ....

lest you end up unmarried, friendless, and without a job.

So what's your excuse for being here.

Suggestion: find a good twelve step program,
they can work wonders for your problems.

Fortunately, Outlook Express filters can make you, Rod Speed, and similar
trolls disappear, POOF, never to be heard from again

Yup, there was a reason for why I suggested to say hello to the other ostrich.

(so no need to respond, I'll never see it).

Selfcentered as always.

Every one else will see it, excactly what it is intended for.

Jim

Happy Holidays!

Say hello to Arnie for us after you've stuck your head in the sand.

Jim


(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message From what I gather SATA (I) allows transfer speeds of up to 1.5gbps
transfer speed but this is internal so does that mean that a user will only
benefit from SATA if they use their hard drives in a RAID configuration?


It's the "interface" that's been improved, SATA is a faster "interface" than
the prior technology, IDE.

No, it's not. Newer extensions to SATA are.

[snip]