BTX Technology/Native Command Queuing

[daytripper]

You're still using a modem with stop and start bits??

fyi, you've waded in well above your head at this point...

 

[daytripper]

I suspect it's like ye olde 1:1 interleave MFM controllers.

With varying numbers of sectors per track, the raw data rate off
platter is going to vary, and that has to be coupled with the
constant-speed bus to the rest of the PC. If raw data from disk has
to wait for this bus, then one might have to wait for an extra spin of
the disk, which is ungood.

So the cache may be to allow raw disk to cache transfer at whatever
the off-platter data rate happens to be; once done, the heads can
carry on with whatever is supposed to happen next, while the cache RAM
feeds the PCI (or newer coupling) bus at whatever speed is OK.

By the time the heads have reached the next position, chances are the
cache will be empty and the whole process can begin again.

Wow. That's a clean miss on all counts! Nicely done ;-)

 

[daytripper]

Indeed that's the story. A FAQ the Seagate website:

"Disc drive data rates have not exceeded ATA100 limits yet, so why should I switch
to SATA?
The maximum internal data rate on an IDE disc drive today is around 72 Mbytes/sec.
The ATA/100 data transfer rate has not been reached, but one of the reasons IDE
performance is where it is today is the expandable data path PATA has allowed.
That data path in PATA has reached its limit. SATA allows disc drives to continue
to offer performance and reliability at cost parity to PATA. In addition, SATA interface
requires less voltage, meaning better power consumption and management in both
desktop and mobile applications. The thinner cable allows for flexible designs and
improved airflow in smaller form factors."

(Whippersnapper: your attitude made me question the credibility of what you say/said,
so I had to go search the web for the above source for information that I was able to
believe.)

It wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination to think that when 3Gb/s shows up
on a drive box that the technology inside will have changed to where the 1.5Gb/s
rate has been eclipsed. Therefor I'll still keep an eye out for drives with that
specification, as it may (and I think probably will) be an idicator of increased
performance.

Nah. It'll first come from the same marketing drones that have already messed
with your reasoning skills...

hth ;-)

 

[RusH]

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a
speed up to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is
picking nits (I'm not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be
welcomed with open arms (was the point). My guess is that SATA-I
is close to the stated 1.5Gb/s spec

[cut]

my dear, this thread is funnier and funnier
Do you realize that the FASTEST SATA drive available to this day (WD
Raptor 740) is actually a PATA drive with PATA2SATA glue chip onboard
? Yes, it is a PATA drive.

I'm forward thinking to when a consumer box could actually
self-heal in a short time. Currently it may take 20 mins (probably
less) for the as-manufactured configuration to be reinstalled. But
then there's the onsite/user config and data also (more work to be
done in this area). The goal of course being a user-friendly or
hands off approach to fixing mucked-up systems. Doesn't apply to
techies like yourself.

hmmm, but WHY to recover ? I see no reason (besides stupid user who
should get no computer acces in the first place)

Pozdrawiam.

 

[keith]

I suspect it's like ye olde 1:1 interleave MFM controllers.

Let me be a tad more kind than 'tripper; Nope. The drives were
interleaved for the opposite problem. They were faster than the
controller (CPU, in fact). The CPU couldn't decide where to go next
before "next" came around. ...thus inteleave some crap inbetween so we
have time to thimk.

With varying numbers of sectors per track, the raw data rate off
platter is going to vary, and that has to be coupled with the
constant-speed bus to the rest of the PC. If raw data from disk has
to wait for this bus, then one might have to wait for an extra spin of
the disk, which is ungood.

The fact is that the bus is *SO* much faster that there isn't any "wait".
Even if the track/sector is hit without error, the data can be dumped
off the drive into main memory faster than the platter dumps it to its
electronics.

So the cache may be to allow raw disk to cache transfer at whatever the
off-platter data rate happens to be; once done, the heads can carry on
with whatever is supposed to happen next, while the cache RAM feeds the
PCI (or newer coupling) bus at whatever speed is OK.

Try again. If the interface is 5-10x faster than the head, what's the
bottleneck? Hint: it's *not* the interface.

By the time the heads have reached the next position, chances are the
cache will be empty and the whole process can begin again.

Head position is irrelevant if the buffer is empty as soon as the current
track/sector is read. The buffer is still waiting for the next request.
Remember, the interface is *faster* than the head/platter!

Note; there's a lot of conjecture there, such as; is there enough time
during a head click to empty a buffer? Which is faster, HD unit to PC
transfer rate or disk platter to cache RAM transfer rate? And so on.

I've already told you in no uncertain terms, the weak link is the
head/platter interface (a.k.a. Sustained Data Rate). All else is
meaningless.

 

[keith]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:



AJ wrote:
I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

[...]

Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
SATA drives.

Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
<> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

Points to
consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
mobo level.

I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
talking about individual drive specs.

Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
throughput now).

You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
The interface rate is meaningless.

Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
doesn't matter.

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a speed up
to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is picking nits (I'm
not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be welcomed with open arms
(was the point).

Stop looking at the press-releases then. Look at the specifications.

Again, I don't think the vendors would open themselves up to class action
as easily as you imply.

No implication. Please do keep up. You *inferred* that the interface
data rate was meaningful. Too bad. Learn.

Actually, 59MB/s = 472Mb/s = 4.72 Gb/s.

Want to try your arithmetic again? Come on!

My bad. But you should have known what I meant. (Though there's quite a
few ultra-techie types that have a hard time with contextual
comprehension. Are you one?).

This *is* a technical group. If you can't stand the heat...

By "advertised", I was thinking such as a prominent spec on the front of
a retail box with "3 Gb/s" (I don't care if it also said "interface" or
"throughput" or whatever. Performance is implied in that case and if it
isn't there, it wouldn't take much of a lawyer to argue "deception",
"fraudulent" etc).

They state specifications, what you infer from these specifications is
your business. Again, it is you that is missing the boat here. You're
missing the boat, thus drowning in your ignorance. Do understand that
ignorance isn't the same as stupidity. ...though I'm not sure how many
times one has to be told the facts of life...

Aside: Does anyone know if another platter density increase is coming
soon and will that help achieve 3 Gb/s? Will drives be moving away from
magnetic technology to cross that chasm?

Good god gert! The platter density is ony a piece of the puzzle.
Homework: GO compare the STR of a 5400RPM drive with it's "bigger"
borhter 7200RPM drive. Now look across the industry. Do report back,
since you'll be graded.

You have a point whippersnapper or are you in general an ad-hominem
poster?

Nope, you're the one who is schizophrenic! One doesn't talk about
reliability and WinBlows/IE in the same sentence. Again, *yikes*!

That was part of my scenario and why I said <20 mins (images apply
faster than an install takes).

Then whay are you yammering on about install times? Install from a
complete image! Forget the damned installllation CD.

Reread my post. I mentioned that as part of the process and indicated
that's where more work needs yet to be done.

I think the "work" needs to be done elsewhere.

 

[keith]

LOL. My bad. "whippersnapper" is gonna jump all over this big time! LOL!

I assume you're talking to me ("whippersnapper"). Ok, everyone who's been
around these parts knows I'm 34. I went gray early.

= .472Gb/s is obviously the correct answer. Which seems low and wouldn't
explain why SATA drives are faster than ATA100 drives.

Ya' damned fool, it's *not* because of the interface! ATA100 drives are
at least two generations old. Compare the speed of the *equivalent* PATA
and SATA drives. You won't find any. The interface has been maxed out
since at least ATA33. Wow!

If you won't listen to me, please do listen to 'tripper. We're both kinda
into this icky "hardware stuff" though.

 

[keith]

Eye on ball: the issue was the importance of drive speed in a recovery
process. The actual process (OS install, data restore, apps etc) isn't
important to the point: that drivespeed (sustained throughput) is more
important than CPU performance in regards to recovery (a rather lengthy
process). When dealing with images, even moreso since it's all disk and
little CPU. OK now?

You're welcome to move the goalposts (we take that as an admission of
ignorance), but you're still dead wrong about drives and interfaces.
Perhaps you're getting there though.

 

[keith]

(Whippersnapper: your attitude made me question the credibility of what you say/said,
so I had to go search the web for the above source for information that I was able to
believe.)

Ya' damned fool! How many times does it take for someone to beat you over
your small head before you'll look at the facts?! I even told you where
to go for the real deal. Yeesh!

Perhaps you'd better understand the dynamics (and statics, for that
matter) of a group before you go wading in (*way*) over your head. There
are those of us here that do this hardware shit for a living. This isn't
complicated.

It wouldn't be a far stretch of the imagination to think that when 3Gb/s
shows up on a drive box that the technology inside will have changed to
where the 1.5Gb/s rate has been eclipsed. Therefor I'll still keep an
eye out for drives with that specification, as it may (and I think
probably will) be an idicator of increased performance.

Oh, good grief! ...just when I thought you were beginning to learn
something.

I bet your buy femine hygene products because they're advertised on the
TeeVee too.

 

[AJ]

I assume you're talking to me ("whippersnapper"). Ok, everyone who's been
around these parts knows I'm 34. I went gray early.

Ya' damned fool, it's *not* because of the interface!

I know that now (at least as far as sustained transfer rate is concerned. Surely
it makes a difference for data in the drive cache). I went to the Seagate site and
got the info.

ATA100 drives are
at least two generations old. Compare the speed of the *equivalent* PATA
and SATA drives.

I did. I went to storagereview.com. Stop thinking that you know everything and
that everyone else knows nothing.

You won't find any. The interface has been maxed out
since at least ATA33. Wow!

If you won't listen to me, please do listen to 'tripper. We're both kinda
into this icky "hardware stuff" though.

Nothing to listen to really. I'm still chomping at the bit for 3Gb/s SATA drives
because I think they'll be faster. Wanna bet? I'll bet that a 3Gb/s SATA drive
will have at least twice the sustained transfer rate of a 1.5Gb/s SATA drive.
(No I won't! hehe).

(Watch out for the hole you're about to step in whippersnapper!)

AJ

 

[keith]

I know that now (at least as far as sustained transfer rate is concerned. Surely
it makes a difference for data in the drive cache). I went to the Seagate site and
got the info.

Ya' damned fool! Why would *anything* interesting be in the drive's
cache? The OS caches writes. ...anything that's in the drive's cache
will also be in the OS' cache. As 'tripper has indicated, look at the
puny size of the cache. Who cares! Come on, *THINK* man!

I did. I went to storagereview.com. Stop thinking that you know
everything and that everyone else knows nothing.

Stop thinking you know *something*. Learn!

Nothing to listen to really. I'm still chomping at the bit for 3Gb/s
SATA drives because I think they'll be faster. Wanna bet? I'll bet that
a 3Gb/s SATA drive will have at least twice the sustained transfer rate
of a 1.5Gb/s SATA drive. (No I won't! hehe).

You really are incapable of learning. ...seen it here before. Kidz.

(Watch out for the hole you're about to step in whippersnapper!)

I'm not following you! Whippersnapper! That's rich!

Damned fool!

 

[AJ]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:07:35 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:



AJ wrote:
I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

[...]

Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
SATA drives.

Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
<> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

Points to
consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
mobo level.

I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
talking about individual drive specs.

Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
throughput now).

You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
The interface rate is meaningless.

Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
doesn't matter.

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a speed up
to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is picking nits (I'm
not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be welcomed with open arms
(was the point).

Stop looking at the press-releases then. Look at the specifications.

Again, I don't think the vendors would open themselves up to class action
as easily as you imply.

No implication. Please do keep up. You *inferred* that the interface
data rate was meaningful. Too bad. Learn.

It is. But not to the extremely literal techie to whom fuzzy logic is confusing.

Want to try your arithmetic again? Come on!

Corrected immediately after.

This *is* a technical group. If you can't stand the heat...

Well it's one thing to be technically adept and another entirely to be
blinded by technology. (You couldn't understand my want for faster
drives. While a 1.5 Gb/s SATA drive today is maxed out at 75 MB/s,
tomorrows 3 Gb/s drive may indeed be maxed out at 150MB/s, double
the throughput. So what's the diff? It's still doubling of the rate! Now do
you see my point? Who cares what the numbers are if the benefit is the
same and as expected: reimaging in half the time for example.)

They state specifications, what you infer from these specifications is
your business. Again, it is you that is missing the boat here. You're
missing the boat, thus drowning in your ignorance. Do understand that
ignorance isn't the same as stupidity. ...though I'm not sure how many
times one has to be told the facts of life...

You're the one who's ranting and raving like a lunatic, not me. Perhaps you
should consider thinking a little more and getting all of the information
before you go on your rampages.

Good god gert! The platter density is ony a piece of the puzzle.

Piss poor answer. Answer the question if you know or shut up already (geez
Louise!). Actually, don't bother: the reason I asked again is because I wanted
anyone else's input but your's.

Then whay are you yammering on about install times? Install from a
complete image! Forget the damned installllation CD.

Because I happen to have that time in my head as a time reference. No other
reason. I stated "recovery" as one applicable reason why I'd like to see
faster drives. Installation though too since that allows me to do more iterative
testing on.. installation!

I think the "work" needs to be done elsewhere.

Can you even type one sentence without being antagonistic? (You may
be 34 but you obviously have the demeanor of an adolescent). Have
you ever heard the phrase: "attack the issue, not the person"?

Be a civil adult or I'll bozo bin you. (This is your last chance, give it a
try).


AJ

 

[AJ]

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a
speed up to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is
picking nits (I'm not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be
welcomed with open arms (was the point). My guess is that SATA-I
is close to the stated 1.5Gb/s spec

[cut]

my dear, this thread is funnier and funnier
Do you realize that the FASTEST SATA drive available to this day (WD
Raptor 740) is actually a PATA drive with PATA2SATA glue chip onboard
? Yes, it is a PATA drive.

I'm forward thinking to when a consumer box could actually
self-heal in a short time. Currently it may take 20 mins (probably
less) for the as-manufactured configuration to be reinstalled. But
then there's the onsite/user config and data also (more work to be
done in this area). The goal of course being a user-friendly or
hands off approach to fixing mucked-up systems. Doesn't apply to
techies like yourself.

hmmm, but WHY to recover ? I see no reason (besides stupid user who
should get no computer acces in the first place)

Of course hard drives never fail. And viruses (viri?) never muck up systems.
And... <your favorite disaster here> never happens.

AJ

 

[AJ]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:07:35 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:



AJ wrote:
I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

[...]

Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
SATA drives.

Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
<> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

Points to
consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
mobo level.

I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
talking about individual drive specs.

Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
throughput now).

You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
The interface rate is meaningless.

Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
doesn't matter.

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a speed up
to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is picking nits (I'm
not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be welcomed with open arms
(was the point).

Stop looking at the press-releases then. Look at the specifications.

Again, I don't think the vendors would open themselves up to class action
as easily as you imply.

No implication. Please do keep up. You *inferred* that the interface
data rate was meaningful. Too bad. Learn.

It is. But not to the extremely literal techie to whom fuzzy logic is confusing.

Want to try your arithmetic again? Come on!

Corrected immediately after.

This *is* a technical group. If you can't stand the heat...

Well it's one thing to be technically adept and another entirely to be
blinded by technology. (You couldn't understand my want for faster
drives. While a 1.5 Gb/s SATA drive today is maxed out at 75 MB/s,
tomorrows 3 Gb/s drive may indeed be maxed out at 150MB/s, double
the throughput. So what's the diff? It's still doubling of the rate! Now do
you see my point? Who cares what the numbers are if the benefit is the
same and as expected: reimaging in half the time for example.)

They state specifications, what you infer from these specifications is
your business. Again, it is you that is missing the boat here. You're
missing the boat, thus drowning in your ignorance. Do understand that
ignorance isn't the same as stupidity. ...though I'm not sure how many
times one has to be told the facts of life...

You're the one who's ranting and raving like a lunatic, not me. Perhaps you
should consider thinking a little more and getting all of the information
before you go on your rampages.

Good god gert! The platter density is ony a piece of the puzzle.

Piss poor answer. Answer the question if you know or shut up already (geez
Louise!). Actually, don't bother: the reason I asked again is because I wanted
anyone else's input but your's.

Then whay are you yammering on about install times? Install from a
complete image! Forget the damned installllation CD.

Because I happen to have that time in my head as a time reference. No other
reason. I stated "recovery" as one applicable reason why I'd like to see
faster drives. Installation though too since that allows me to do more iterative
testing on.. installation!

I think the "work" needs to be done elsewhere.

Can you even type one sentence without being antagonistic? (You may
be 34 but you obviously have the demeanor of an adolescent). Have
you ever heard the phrase: "attack the issue, not the person"?

Be a civil adult or I'll bozo bin you. (This is your last chance, give it a
try).


AJ

 

[AJ]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:07:35 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:



AJ wrote:
I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

[...]

Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
SATA drives.

Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
<> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

Points to
consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
mobo level.

I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
talking about individual drive specs.

Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
throughput now).

You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
The interface rate is meaningless.

Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
doesn't matter.

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a speed up
to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is picking nits (I'm
not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be welcomed with open arms
(was the point).

Stop looking at the press-releases then. Look at the specifications.

Again, I don't think the vendors would open themselves up to class action
as easily as you imply.

No implication. Please do keep up. You *inferred* that the interface
data rate was meaningful. Too bad. Learn.

It is. But not to the extremely literal techie to whom fuzzy logic is confusing.

Want to try your arithmetic again? Come on!

Corrected immediately after.

This *is* a technical group. If you can't stand the heat...

Well it's one thing to be technically adept and another entirely to be
blinded by technology. (You couldn't understand my want for faster
drives. While a 1.5 Gb/s SATA drive today is maxed out at 75 MB/s,
tomorrows 3 Gb/s drive may indeed be maxed out at 150MB/s, double
the throughput. So what's the diff? It's still doubling of the rate! Now do
you see my point? Who cares what the numbers are if the benefit is the
same and as expected: reimaging in half the time for example.)

They state specifications, what you infer from these specifications is
your business. Again, it is you that is missing the boat here. You're
missing the boat, thus drowning in your ignorance. Do understand that
ignorance isn't the same as stupidity. ...though I'm not sure how many
times one has to be told the facts of life...

You're the one who's ranting and raving like a lunatic, not me. Perhaps you
should consider thinking a little more and getting all of the information
before you go on your rampages.

Good god gert! The platter density is ony a piece of the puzzle.

Piss poor answer. Answer the question if you know or shut up already (geez
Louise!). Actually, don't bother: the reason I asked again is because I wanted
anyone else's input but your's.

Then whay are you yammering on about install times? Install from a
complete image! Forget the damned installllation CD.

Because I happen to have that time in my head as a time reference. No other
reason. I stated "recovery" as one applicable reason why I'd like to see
faster drives. Installation though too since that allows me to do more iterative
testing on.. installation!

I think the "work" needs to be done elsewhere.

Can you even type one sentence without being antagonistic? (You may
be 34 but you obviously have the demeanor of an adolescent). Have
you ever heard the phrase: "attack the issue, not the person"?

Be a civil adult or I'll bozo bin you. (This is your last chance, give it a
try).


AJ

 

[AJ]

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a
speed up to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is
picking nits (I'm not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be
welcomed with open arms (was the point). My guess is that SATA-I
is close to the stated 1.5Gb/s spec

[cut]

my dear, this thread is funnier and funnier
Do you realize that the FASTEST SATA drive available to this day (WD
Raptor 740) is actually a PATA drive with PATA2SATA glue chip onboard
? Yes, it is a PATA drive.

I'm forward thinking to when a consumer box could actually
self-heal in a short time. Currently it may take 20 mins (probably
less) for the as-manufactured configuration to be reinstalled. But
then there's the onsite/user config and data also (more work to be
done in this area). The goal of course being a user-friendly or
hands off approach to fixing mucked-up systems. Doesn't apply to
techies like yourself.

hmmm, but WHY to recover ? I see no reason (besides stupid user who
should get no computer acces in the first place)

Of course hard drives never fail. And viruses (viri?) never muck up systems.
And... <your favorite disaster here> never happens.

AJ

 

[keith]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:07:35 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:


On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:



AJ wrote:
I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

[...]

Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
SATA drives.

Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
<> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

Points to
consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
mobo level.

I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
talking about individual drive specs.

Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
throughput now).

You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
The interface rate is meaningless.

Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
doesn't matter.

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a speed up
to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is picking nits (I'm
not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be welcomed with open arms
(was the point).

Stop looking at the press-releases then. Look at the specifications.

Again, I don't think the vendors would open themselves up to class action
as easily as you imply.

No implication. Please do keep up. You *inferred* that the interface
data rate was meaningful. Too bad. Learn.

It is. But not to the extremely literal techie to whom fuzzy logic is confusing.

It is *not*. I guess you'll forever insist on being ignorant as a pig
though. Repeat after me: "the interface doesn't matter". Interfaces are
cheap, defying physics isn't.

Corrected immediately after.

Ok, now will you admit that you're bottom of the pond, wrong? It's at
a start on the road to enlightenment.

Well it's one thing to be technically adept and another entirely to be
blinded by technology.

....and another thing to be blinded by marketing. Since this is a
*technical* group...

(You couldn't understand my want for faster
drives. While a 1.5 Gb/s SATA drive today is maxed out at 75 MB/s,
tomorrows 3 Gb/s drive may indeed be maxed out at 150MB/s, double the
throughput. So what's the diff? It's still doubling of the rate! Now do
you see my point? Who cares what the numbers are if the benefit is the
same and as expected: reimaging in half the time for example.)

YOu're talking garbage. If you got your 3Gb/s *interface*, like you asked
you'd still have your hand, umm... Let's say you were asking the wrong
question and were too pig-headed to take some rather friendly advice.
IT'S NOT THE INTERFACE, DUMMY.

Get over it, and learn.

You're the one who's ranting and raving like a lunatic, not me. Perhaps
you should consider thinking a little more and getting all of the
information before you go on your rampages.

You're the one that's flying in the face of *facts*. ...which you are
clearly devoid of. Frankly, others here are laughing at you.
Misconceptios are one thing, but outright refusal to listen to the facts
is another. Pig-headed is a term tht comes to mind.

Piss poor answer. Answer the question if you know or shut up already
(geez Louise!). Actually, don't bother: the reason I asked again is
because I wanted anyone else's input but your's.

Please do your homework and report back. I've given you the pieces of the
puzzle and told you where to go for the information, now it's your turn
to take what you've "learned" and figure it out for yourself. I'm sure
you'll find the exercise, and results, entertaining.

Because I happen to have that time in my head as a time reference. No
other reason. I stated "recovery" as one applicable reason why I'd like
to see faster drives. Installation though too since that allows me to do
more iterative testing on.. installation!

Wow! You're testing M$'s installation proceedure. over---n-over-n-over
on the same hardware. That's certainly useful.

Can you even type one sentence without being antagonistic? (You may be
34 but you obviously have the demeanor of an adolescent).

You are new here aren't 'ya kid.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "attack the issue, not the person"?

You've clearly not been listening. I've told you nothing but the truth
(well the age thing is an old .chips inside joke), yet you continue to
challenge the ABSOLUTE TRUTH as if you somehow were a system design
engineer. ...while trying to bullshit a few of them! Now you're claiming
"foul" because you've been told a dozen times you're wrong and people take
you to task for being *dense*.

Be a civil adult or I'll bozo bin you. (This is your last chance, give
it a try).

Go fer it! Your loss. I'm the one who was trying to teach you something.
You clearly are too proud of your ignorance to learn. So be it.

 

[keith]

Well the implied (by the drive vendors) info is that there is a
speed up to be had in a future generation of SATA. No one is
picking nits (I'm not). Faster drives (more throughput) will be
welcomed with open arms (was the point). My guess is that SATA-I
is close to the stated 1.5Gb/s spec

[cut]

my dear, this thread is funnier and funnier
Do you realize that the FASTEST SATA drive available to this day (WD
Raptor 740) is actually a PATA drive with PATA2SATA glue chip onboard
? Yes, it is a PATA drive.

I'm forward thinking to when a consumer box could actually
self-heal in a short time. Currently it may take 20 mins (probably
less) for the as-manufactured configuration to be reinstalled. But
then there's the onsite/user config and data also (more work to be
done in this area). The goal of course being a user-friendly or
hands off approach to fixing mucked-up systems. Doesn't apply to
techies like yourself.

hmmm, but WHY to recover ? I see no reason (besides stupid user who
should get no computer acces in the first place)

Of course hard drives never fail. And viruses (viri?) never muck up systems.
And... <your favorite disaster here> never happens.

Certainly not often enough for WinBlows installation time to be of any
importance.

BTW, you're stuttering.

 

[AJ]

Ya' damned fool! How many times does it take for someone to beat you over
your small head before you'll look at the facts?! I even told you where
to go for the real deal. Yeesh!

Perhaps you'd better understand the dynamics (and statics, for that
matter) of a group before you go wading in (*way*) over your head. There
are those of us here that do this hardware shit for a living. This isn't
complicated.


Oh, good grief! ...just when I thought you were beginning to learn
something.

(hehe.. and I even warned you about the large and deep hole in the road and
you went and stepped into it anyway! Bizarre.)

Don't look now but you can't see the forrest for the trees. (I know what it is,
you've been posturing with your technical data in this thread and now when
the obviousness of the issue is clear to you, you can't stand the embarrassment.
You're probably doing it without knowing it (your subconscious is putting you in
a state of denial). Don't be afraid. No one is going to say "I told you so". It's OK
to be wrong sometimes and to miss the point. Even by a mile like you did (hehe)).

It'll be OK. Don't cry lil one. Say to yourself: "it'll be OK, shhhh, it'll be OK now".

AJ

 

[AJ]

You're welcome to move the goalposts (we take that as an admission of
ignorance), but you're still dead wrong about drives and interfaces.
Perhaps you're getting there though.

Nah. You just don't understand the issue/need/problem/want. Your focus is
on the means rather then the goal. That's where you messed up. Look up
the word "paradigm" and in the future you won't get so worked up about
nothing.

AJ