SATA 3G

Z Man · Mar 1, 2006

I have an HP Pavilion 1090n computer with ASUS PTGD1-LA motherboard. This
system supports SATA and I am adding a couple of external SATA hard drives
in Vantec Nexstar cases. I will probably purchase Hitachi 7K500 drives,
which support 3G. Question: does 3G SATA support have to be provided on the
system (motherboard or card), or just on the drives? Will I be limited to
1.5G performance even though I am using 3G drives? Does anyone know if this
motherboard supports 3G? If the answers are all negative, I could either
settle for 1.5G performance, or add a 3G card. This would mean removing the
modem (which I never use anyhow) to free up a slot, which I would consider.
Thanks.

Folkert Rienstra · Mar 1, 2006

3 Gb SATA is for external raid cabinets.
3 Gb SATA does nothing for a single harddrive except for very
special applications that take advantage of the onboard cache.

Odie Ferrous · Mar 1, 2006

Folkert said:
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.

Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

......oops - I know how much you like my sig. Here it is again.

Folkert Rienstra · Mar 1, 2006

Odie Ferrous said:
Folkert Rienstra wrote:

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?

I'd be inclined to go a step further and say that 3GB SATA is a waste of
space for practically everything.

Odie

.....oops - I know how much you like my sig.

Yeah, especially when a self professed data recovery specialist makes
an ass out of him self by showing to not have a single clue about storage,
I can't get enough of it ...

Here it is again.

.... but one per post is enough.

Harkhof · Mar 2, 2006

Odie Ferrous said:
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?

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?

Thanks,
Hark

Arno Wagner · Mar 2, 2006

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?

Maybe the bots need to go faster with the external cabinet, since
the cable is longer and the Einstein Podolski Posenberg effect
comes into play if the cabinet is spinning fast enough?

I'd be inclined to go a step further and say that 3GB SATA is a
waste of space for practically everything.

I have to disagree. 3Gb SATA is exactly the same size as 1.5Gb SATA!
So how can it be a waste of space if it does not waste any space
compared to the alternatove?

(Sorry, could not resist. Seriously, besides marketing I don't see
a reason for it either.)

Arno

Arno Wagner · Mar 2, 2006

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!)

Arno

Z Man · Mar 2, 2006

Arno Wagner said:
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??

Rod Speed · Mar 2, 2006

Wasting your money if you paid more for it.

Nope.

That it doesnt matter a damn if its 1.5 or 3

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.

Nope, not when the thruput is determined by the drive
physical characteristics, sectors per track and RPM.

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

Yep, and that is correct.

This doesn't make logical sense.

Yes it does. 3 is for future drives that can do better than 1.5 can do.

Is it really true?
Yep.

Is there no advantage to upgrading to 3G?

Not with current drives.

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

Usual mindless sales bullshit and the need for 3 sometime in the future.

Eric Gisin · Mar 2, 2006

Z Man said:
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??

Yup, all hype and marketing. No point at all.
Disks won't need more than 1.5Gb/s until they have ~500GB platters.

Beemer Biker · Mar 2, 2006

Z Man said:
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. If you had little or no cache
(FIFO) then you are merely operating at the thruput speed which is probably
far far lower then 3GB.

I assume the 3GB is just the bus speed, not the head transfer rate on the
disk or the thruput of the bridge that connects the memory to the device.

my 2c, IANE

--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

Peter · Mar 2, 2006

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).

Maybe "thruput" is only "533MB (bit, not byte)" but throughput is 533 Mega
Bytes per second.

Beemer Biker · Mar 2, 2006

Eric Gisin said:
Yup, all hype and marketing. No point at all.
Disks won't need more than 1.5Gb/s until they have ~500GB platters.

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.

--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

Beemer Biker · Mar 2, 2006

Peter said:
Maybe "thruput" is only "533MB (bit, not byte)" but throughput is 533 Mega
Bytes per second.

i stand corrected, got bit by the B again!

Rod Speed · Mar 2, 2006

If you have 5 disks in an array and each has 100GB platters you got your
500GB right there.

Not when each has its own 1.5 cable, you still dont need 3.

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.

No they dont, anyone with a clue records digitally and doesnt
need anything like 1.5 for the disk thats used to record that.

Rod Speed · Mar 2, 2006

Beemer Biker said:
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.

If you had little or no cache (FIFO) then you are merely operating at the
thruput speed which is probably far far lower then 3GB.

No probably about it, doesnt even get to 1.5

I assume the 3GB is just the bus speed,

There is no bus, just the cable.

not the head transfer rate on the disk or the thruput of the bridge that
connects the memory to the device.

my 2c, IANE

I wanna refund, WESR

Beemer Biker · Mar 2, 2006

Rod Speed said:
Beemer Biker said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Pity that sata is one drive per cable.

Every drive has a cable, so? Not sure what you are getting at. The
controller has to handle all the connections. if a controller has 8 SATA
connections it must be able to handle transfer to from 8 devices
simultaneously. that could be disk-to-disk or even disk-to-tape. there are
sata tapes on market.

No probably about it, doesnt even get to 1.5

There is no bus, just the cable.

you are bitpicking!

Beemer Biker · Mar 2, 2006

Rod Speed said:
Not when each has its own 1.5 cable, you still dont need 3.

No they dont, anyone with a clue records digitally and doesnt
need anything like 1.5 for the disk thats used to record that.

I think that is what we are talking about no? Here is a pick I took a
couple of years ago in japan.
http://tinyurl.com/ohogv there are 100's of antennas, an array of digital
drop receivers and about 5000 scsi disks, all recording data in parallel.

--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (e-mail address removed)
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
=======================================================================

Folkert Rienstra · Mar 2, 2006

No point at all.

For diskdrives. It does for cards and external raid controllers.

If you have 5 disks in an array and each has 100GB platters you got your
500GB right there.

What he's saying is that a single disk drive won't transfer anywhere near the
usable transfer limit of SATA 1 (I'm guessing 100MB/s) until they reach
platter densities of 500GB or so. Presumably that's for 7.2k rpm drives.

I have seen systems that have 5000+ disks in an array.

In several hundreds of arrays probably, or in arrays of arrays.

Rod Speed · Mar 2, 2006

I think that is what we are talking about no?
No.

Here is a pick I took a couple of years ago in japan.
http://tinyurl.com/ohogv there are 100's of antennas, an array of
digital drop receivers and about 5000 scsi disks, all recording data in
parallel.

I doubt too many are running that on their home PC or their work PC either.

SATA 3G

Z Man

Folkert Rienstra

Odie Ferrous

Folkert Rienstra

Harkhof

Arno Wagner

Arno Wagner

Z Man

Rod Speed

Eric Gisin

Beemer Biker

Peter

Beemer Biker

Beemer Biker

Rod Speed

Rod Speed

Beemer Biker

Beemer Biker

Folkert Rienstra

Rod Speed