Are SATA drives as reliable as PATA in IDE Mode?

[Bart]

I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset. I'm
trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives be any
less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID configuration.

I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives. I
got this observation from the following website ...

http://www.ata-atapi.com/sata.htm

"Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to implement
an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft Reset rarely
fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a command can
be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not seem
to reset anything and at some times it is basically ignored by the SATA
controller and device."

Any truth to this? Thanks.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset. I'm
trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives be any
less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID configuration.

I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives. I
got this observation from the following website ...

"Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to implement
an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft Reset rarely
fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a command can
be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not seem
to reset anything and at some times it is basically ignored by the SATA
controller and device."

Any truth to this? Thanks.

No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
still being developed.

Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
often a bit more expensive. The SATA cables are better (not
really an issue with 2 drives).

Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
bridge chip--apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.

I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
still being developed.

Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
often a bit more expensive.

Except for (a) Raptors and (b) some models shipping with the seek algorithms
tuned for low noise in the PATA models and maximum performance in the PATA
models.

The SATA cables are better (not
really an issue with 2 drives).

Whether they're "better" is debatable--they're thinner but the connectors
are horribly fragile.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno Wagner wrote: [...]

No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
bridge chip--apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.

Aha, I see.

Except for (a) Raptors and (b) some models shipping with the seek
algorithms tuned for low noise in the PATA models and maximum
performance in the PATA I guess this ^ is an 'S' ;-)
models.

Whether they're "better" is debatable--they're thinner but the connectors
are horribly fragile.

Agreed. I like the cable and the length, but I also think the connectors
are (once again) the cheapest and worst option. I Have seen some
pictures of "STAT II" connectors. They seem better and lock into
place.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
bridge chip--

apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.

Or maybe the bridge chip thingies aren't but everybody else has adapted to
them so now it doesn't work with the real deal.