N
A
AD C
Thank you, I bookmarked the URL and well have a look tomorrow, when i amNewt said:
more awake. I want to know more about Serial ATA as my board supports them
B
Baffie
I must take a look at this website - there may well be an explanation
on why such flimsy connectors were specified when it's pretty obvious
how easy they can be broken.
Please reply to newsgroup - it's not my address in the header!
R
Robert Baer
Newt said:
I think the "fuss" (or hype) is a bit over-rated at best.
For example, take a "ho-hum" parallel IDE data transfer rate of
100Mbytes/sec, and make the false assumption that only data is
transferred via the cable.
Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
A
AD C
Baffie said:
they do look flimsy, I must admit, I looked at the cable that came with
my abit board, I suppose most of the time they are pluged in and left,so
being flimsy is not a problem.
You may be able to help me here, one day soon, in the future, when I got
some money
, I am looking to buy a Serial ATA drive. I know thatyou need a different data cable, but I also heard you need a convertor
for the power lead, is that true?
The only thing that came with my mother board is a data cable and a EIDE
convertor so I can one my normal har drive on the Serial if I want to.
See no need to do that yet, unles I was suign raid or I had all my EIDE
ports filled.
A
AD C
Robert said:
I will have a look at what you said when I am more awake and then try
and understand it
D
DeMoN LaG
See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
R
RussS
Consider todays serial ATA to be the equivalent as earlier ATA 33
standards - 66 was an improvement and future SATA will be an improvement on
current specs. Saying that my current setup with an ASUS P48SX board is
much quicker and trouble free than my earlier version P4S333 with PATA
drives - using the same RAM and processor.
standards - 66 was an improvement and future SATA will be an improvement on
current specs. Saying that my current setup with an ASUS P48SX board is
much quicker and trouble free than my earlier version P4S333 with PATA
drives - using the same RAM and processor.
G
GB
DeMoN LaG said:
Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
comes out?
Is this just hype-ware?
T
Thor
GB said:
No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward compatible,
just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward compatible
throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over time
will be in the BIOS just as before.
R
Richard Dower
DeMoN LaG said:
Indeed...SATA 300 is due mid 2004, and SATA 600 is due sometime 2006.
R
Robert Baer
DeMoN said:
Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
what i stated.
Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
(at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
would be fairly fast.
Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?
T
Tim Auton
Robert Baer said:
Thor meant future S-ATA modes will be backwards compatible with the
current S-ATA spec, not with PATA. In the same way as you can use an
ATA66 drive with an ATA133 controller or a USB1.1 device with a USB2.0
controller (or whatever they call USBx.x these days).
Tim
T
Thor
Robert Baer said:
First, I wasn't talking about direct backward compatibility between P-ATA
and S-ATA. I was referring to backward compatibility between different
generations of S-ATA. This is what the poster I repsonded to was asking.
whether S-ATA drives available now will work with the faster generations of
S-ATA controllers that are brought out in the future. There was backward
compatibility between different generations of P-ATA. S-ATA won't be any
different in that regard, thus no need to avoid using S-ATA. However, as to
the issue you mistakenly addressed, there are adapters available right now
that allow P-ATA drives to interface with S-ATA controllers and ATA drives
to interface with P-ATA controllers. No, it's not "direct" backward
compatibility, but it's damn close. Close enough that the compatibitliy
issues between the two standards are a moot point.
V
V W Wall
Robert said:
Thor explained the problems with increasing the data transfer rate with
the present parallel ATA standard(s). Also, remember that the ultimate
origin and destiny of the data is on the surface of a hard disk platter.
This is, of itself, a "serial" data train.
There is some work being done on "parallel" data recording. Multi layers
in optical data media are being investigated, but using magnetic media,
SATA looks like the best near-term solution.
Incidently, without some major change in optical recording, the data density
is limited by the wavelength of the recording "light". Magnetic recording
has no such theoretical limitation.
Virg Wall
A
AD C
DeMoN LaG wrote:
That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
you need 4 SATA ports.
I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
you need 4 SATA ports.
I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
A
AD C
GB wrote:
It will be beack ward compatible, just like PATA and usb is now.
T
Thor
AD C said:
True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to
route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also, you
don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors can't
properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own cable.
Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.
R
Robert Baer
V said:
Ahhhh, you mentioned something i thought of in the mid 1980s..namely
that since all platters have heads, then *parallel* output is so easy
and obvious that it is a wonder how stupid HD makers have been (and for
so long).
Hell, with 8 platters (16 heads) and a different cable configuration,
true 16-bit computing could have been achieved at the outset of the
80386!
That was roughly the time that both IDE and SCSI first came out,
replacing the older MFM multi-cable systems; a lot of new schemes and
"space" for a (then) kick-ass truly parallel system.
Oh, you want to *double* the file access speed (on open and close,
anyway)?
Just put the FAT in the middle of the disk instead of having it at the
edge!
Not my idea; Tandy did that on 8 inch floppies, model 80 if i remember
correctly.
T
Thor
connector?AD C said:
No. They use a new style small connector adjacent to the S-ATA Data
connector. However, current S-ATA drives are often coming with the old-style
molex for compatibility reasons. There are also adapters available for older
power supplies. The new ATX spec coming out will have the new S-ATA power
connector, so new power supplies should start showing up with it.