SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Owens
  • Start date Start date
Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html
Click to expand...

So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
the point you miss.
"...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.

We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."


Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
extra layer of conversions added on.

Guess which one would be faster ?
Click to expand...

Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
have them.
PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?

Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;)
Click to expand...

Actually it's called idiocy.
 
dg said:
When you make a ghost 2003 boot disk you are given the choice: Boot to PC
DOS or MS DOS, I chose MS-DOS. I don't want to confuse anybody by using
terminology that ghost doesn't use, even if "MS-DOS" is really based on a
win98 boot disk, which it was in this case.
Click to expand...



see comment a ways below

Just one partition. I didn't really research that move, but I do like it.
Click to expand...


interesting, a single NTFS partition
at 500GB, that gets my attention and
made me take a loooong look thru my new
System Commander 8.1 manual. :)

(stuff like partition size limits isn't
found where you 1st look, at least not
by the rear index for "NTFS")

SC 8.1 states that NTFS (current or the
older NT NTFS) can have partitions with size
of 1,000+ GB! (on p.27 under OS and Partition
Size Limitations)

looking immediately above that, i see
that they give the same number for FAT32!!

Nothing special, just a standard ghost boot disk.




No I have not, but I strongly believe it would work just fine because it has
already shown it is capable of both reading and writing to arrays as if they
were just single disks. I have used Ghost explorer and successfully
retrieved data from an image on several occasions.
Click to expand...


worst case would be if you lost both the
mobo as well the 1st raid array leaving
only the 2nd raid where your image backups
of c:\ are (tough situation, but highly unlikely)

otoh, if one of your Raptors dies your
c:\ raid 0 is gone

and if that happens your WinXP is gone too
and your only easy recovery is that "DOS"
boot floppy and it had better be able to
see the 2nd raid on its own coz otherwize
you're gonna have to re-install XP and
then reinstall Ghost on it to get back
all of your c:\, not to mention that
it's still not clear to me if an actual
image restore of c:\ will boot properly,
given your specific setup (if it won't,
i don't know if there's any easy way
to get the XP boot back short of something
like having saved it with a boot manager
like System Commander)

just some thoughts, though from what
you've said odds are that you're OK

fwiw, i bought 2 160GB sata disks 6 weeks
ago and still haven't used them (LOL at
myself, but mobo and case space issues,
and driver issues, and my lack of understanding
how DOS Ghost might or might not see a sata single
or a sata raid made me decide to leave it to last)

if i could do it over i wouldn't touch sata

but maybe there's hope (LOL)

thank you for some ideas on sata. :)
i'll find out in the next 2 weeks

bill
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.
Click to expand...

"Upon tilting the drive around its transverse axis, our attention is drawn
to the only chip located on the underside of the board. This is a Serial
ATA Bridge from Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to
make products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA."

The implication is that the Marvel chip is a kludge, present because the
drive doesn't support "native" SATA, like Seagate claims of their drives.
And along those lines (or lies), a native interface will be faster than a
design that has to pass the data through circuitry that converts that data
to the target interface. So in keeping all of this in mind, one could
assume that the Raptor would actually perform faster as a PATA, since it
wouldn't have the Marvel chip and the associated extra conversion factor
layer.
 
Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
extra layer of conversions added on.

Guess which one would be faster ?
Click to expand...

A tie...get a clue.
 
Nomen Nescio said:
"Upon tilting the drive around its transverse axis, our attention is drawn
to the only chip located on the underside of the board. This is a Serial
ATA Bridge from Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to
make products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA."

The implication is that the Marvel chip is a kludge, present because the
drive doesn't support "native" SATA,
Click to expand...

Yep, a 'kludge' that is the fastest ATA drive on the market.
like Seagate claims of their drives.
And along those lines (or lies), a native interface will be faster than a
design that has to pass the data through circuitry that converts that data
to the target interface.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe that such will provided significantly better
performance.
So in keeping all of this in mind, one could
assume that the Raptor would actually perform faster as a PATA, since it
wouldn't have the Marvel chip and the associated extra conversion factor
layer.
Click to expand...

That would be an entirely naive assumption without any supporting evidence.
The conversion chip does NOT have to do much.
 
So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
the point you miss.


Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
have them.


Actually it's called idiocy.
Click to expand...

You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.

Poor even by your sorry standards.
 
Just started postin today as a newbie troll I see.

<heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
 
Nomen Nescio said:
"Upon tilting the drive around its transverse axis, our attention is drawn
to the only chip located on the underside of the board. This is a Serial
ATA Bridge from Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to
make products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA."

The implication is that the Marvel chip is a kludge, present because the
drive doesn't support "native" SATA,
Click to expand...

Yep, a 'kludge' that is the fastest ATA drive on the market.
like Seagate claims of their drives.
And along those lines (or lies), a native interface will be faster than a
design that has to pass the data through circuitry that converts that data
to the target interface.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe that such will provided significantly better
performance.
So in keeping all of this in mind, one could
assume that the Raptor would actually perform faster as a PATA, since it
wouldn't have the Marvel chip and the associated extra conversion factor
layer.
Click to expand...

That would be an entirely naive assumption without any supporting evidence.
The conversion chip does NOT have to do much.
Click to expand...


Bzzzzt. Wrong Answer, Ron.
 
Everything on that site supports my position. Your position doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, Ron. Tell me, are you still involved in selling product or
services in this area ?

Sorry to cause you loss of face.

But... you are so full of it.
 
You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.

Poor even by your sorry standards.
Click to expand...

I see. So you don't have any numbers to present to demonstrate that a drive
with a bridge chip is slower than one without, and you don't know where one
can get drive with a PATA interface that has the same performance as a
Raptor, so instead you resort to insults. Typical response of the
intellectually bankrupt. My only regret is that I wasted my time reading
your posts.

<plonk>
 
J. Clarke said:
I see. So you don't have any numbers to present to demonstrate that a drive
with a bridge chip is slower than one without, and you don't know where one
can get drive with a PATA interface that has the same performance as a Raptor,
so instead you resort to insults. Typical response of the intellectually bankrupt.
Click to expand...
My only regret is that I wasted my time reading your posts.
Click to expand...

You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts seriously.
 
Folkert Rienstra said:
You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts
Click to expand...
seriously.

And then what do you do? Bray at the moon over newsreaders...back under
bridge.
 
Rod Reaugh said:
seriously.

And then what do you do? Bray at the moon over newsreaders...
Click to expand...

It's not the newsreader's fault that idiots like you post loads of
unreadable, mangled-quote garbage to USENET, Rod^Hn.
It's the idiot's fault, for not fixing the dang thing, or for not
using a different tool.
 
Back
Top