• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SAS- UPDATE! ::::::POLL ADDED-->>>

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Googer
Las time I checked (I could be wrong) x16 had 2GB/s or 4GB/s bandwith but the marketing departments double those numbers and tell the general public that it has 8GB/s (Bytes).
Click to expand...

Further research leads me to believe 16x is 4GB/s each direction.
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: Googer
Las time I checked (I could be wrong) x16 had 2GB/s or 4GB/s bandwith but the marketing departments double those numbers and tell the general public that it has 8GB/s (Bytes).
Click to expand...

Further research leads me to believe 16x is 4GB/s each direction.
Click to expand...

Yep, I thougt it was double AGP 8's bandwith.
 
Anyway, now that the thread jacking is over, and that we've established what the bandwidth is, and established that we want more high bandwidth PCIe slots on our mobo's, or barring that, PCI-X, I would like to say that it sounds like SAS will rock. At this point, it's to rich for my blood, but when the prices go down, maybe ina couple years, I will definitly be looking into SAS. I think that having a SCSI setup without the woes of parallel cables will be a great boon for storage solutions everywhere. Also, I look forward to the insane throughput and burst speeds that high RPM SAS drives offer.
 
Originally posted by: Tick
Anyway, now that the thread jacking is over, and that we've established what the bandwidth is, and established that we want more high bandwidth PCIe slots on our mobo's, or barring that, PCI-X, I would like to say that it sounds like SAS will rock. At this point, it's to rich for my blood, but when the prices go down, maybe ina couple years, I will definitly be looking into SAS. I think that having a SCSI setup without the woes of parallel cables will be a great boon for storage solutions everywhere. Also, I look forward to the insane throughput and burst speeds that high RPM SAS drives offer.
Click to expand...

$470 for a new technology like SAS is a Bargain, most new generation scsi drives cost more than that when first released.
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: Tick
Anyway, now that the thread jacking is over, and that we've established what the bandwidth is, and established that we want more high bandwidth PCIe slots on our mobo's, or barring that, PCI-X, I would like to say that it sounds like SAS will rock. At this point, it's to rich for my blood, but when the prices go down, maybe ina couple years, I will definitly be looking into SAS. I think that having a SCSI setup without the woes of parallel cables will be a great boon for storage solutions everywhere. Also, I look forward to the insane throughput and burst speeds that high RPM SAS drives offer.
Click to expand...

$470 for a new technology like SAS is a Bargain, most new generation scsi drives cost more than that when first released.
Click to expand...

Not saying it isn't worth it for the technology, but I sure can't afford it. I'll stick to RAIDing SATA drives. It works for me.
Tas.

 
Originally posted by: Tick
Anyway, now that the thread jacking is over, and that we've established what the bandwidth is, and established that we want more high bandwidth PCIe slots on our mobo's, or barring that, PCI-X, I would like to say that it sounds like SAS will rock.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yeah - I agree. The next computer I build, or my next big upgrade is probably gonna be 4 of these on a nice card. By then prices will have dropped a bit, and other similar drives will have entered the market. Actually there already are similar drives like this, but this seems to be the best performing amongst them.
 
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Originally posted by: Tick
Anyway, now that the thread jacking is over, and that we've established what the bandwidth is, and established that we want more high bandwidth PCIe slots on our mobo's, or barring that, PCI-X, I would like to say that it sounds like SAS will rock.
Click to expand...

The next computer I build, or my next big upgrade is probably gonna be 4 of these on a nice card. By then prices will have dropped a bit, and other similar drives will have entered the market. Actually there already are similar drives like this, but this seems to be the best performing amongst them.
Click to expand...

Best performing? Based on what benchmarks and compairisons? I have not been able to find any information on these at this moment.
 
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I googled "Maxtor Atlas 15K II SAS" and good ole Storagereview.com came up as the top link.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing but included the model number and got ad's. Give a link please.
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I googled "Maxtor Atlas 15K II SAS" and good ole Storagereview.com came up as the top link.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing but included the model number and got ad's. Give a link please.
Click to expand...

I believe this is the right article... Right?
Tas.
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I googled "Maxtor Atlas 15K II SAS" and good ole Storagereview.com came up as the top link.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing but included the model number and got ad's. Give a link please.
Click to expand...

I believe this is the right article... Right?
Tas.
 
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I googled "Maxtor Atlas 15K II SAS" and good ole Storagereview.com came up as the top link.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing but included the model number and got ad's. Give a link please.
Click to expand...

I believe this is the right article... Right?
Tas.
Click to expand...


Yeah it is, but this is the SCSI. In the article it says the SAS version is coming out. At least it is about the drive though- how will performance be compared to this?
 
Acording to StorageReview The MAXTOR is one of the Quietest drives on the charts. Good Ol Fujitsu always puts up a tough fight in the benchmarks, those drives almost never let down when it comes to shear performance.
 
Originally posted by: tasburrfoot78362
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I googled "Maxtor Atlas 15K II SAS" and good ole Storagereview.com came up as the top link.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing but included the model number and got ad's. Give a link please.
Click to expand...

I believe this is the right article... Right?
Tas.
Click to expand...

No those are for U320 SCSI Drives.
 
Anyone booting off of a SCSI drive? I remember it used to be a pain in the ass, and I was wondering if it was still like that...
Tas.
 
Originally posted by: BikeDude
Originally posted by: Googer
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822151031

16MB Cache 73GB 15000RPM!
Click to expand...

"Up to 39% more IO/sec than Atlas 10K V"... Maxtor already had a well performing 15k drive, why did newegg.com compare the new SAS 15k drive with the old and ugly 10k drive that I have?

Interesting that Maxtor doubled the cache though.
Click to expand...

I believe they doubled the cache to compensate for the lack of Ariel Density. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Googer
Best performing? Based on what benchmarks and compairisons? I have not been able to find any information on these at this moment.
Click to expand...

Based on the benchmarks in his head w/RPM, cache, interface. *giggles* Some people still get overly excited about new things ya know Googer. I think he's just being an example of that.

As for best performance, its all a matter of cash. From 7200 to 10k to 15k, from SATA to SAS/SCSI, going on up to the M-systems/ Bit micro and other battery backed RAM / flash systems to the ungodly RamSANs
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: Googer
Best performing? Based on what benchmarks and compairisons? I have not been able to find any information on these at this moment.
Click to expand...

Based on the benchmarks in his head w/RPM, cache, interface. *giggles* Some people still get overly excited about new things ya know Googer. I think he's just being an example of that.
Click to expand...

Well you're pretty clever there, buddy. :roll:

I already stated that the review I mentioned was for SCSI not SAS, and asked how the two would compare. I get no answer, just more condescending comments. 😀
 
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Well you're pretty clever there, buddy. :roll:

I already stated that the review I mentioned was for SCSI not SAS, and asked how the two would compare. I get no answer, just more condescending comments. 😀
Click to expand...

Main Entry: con·de·scend
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
Date: 14th century
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : UNBEND b : to waive the privileges of rank
2 : to assume an air of superiority

Since you protest these so-called condescending comments so much, perhaps you would do well to fix the problem, neophyte. There, now that's dealt with. (P.S. I wasn't being condescending, but since I've already received my label, I'll earn my keep.)

SAS will compare to SCSI much like SATA compares to IDE I'd imagine. The main benefit for old SCSI users will be cabling. a SAS cable is basically two SATA put together. this article has a photo of the cable. In terms of performance, it will likely also be much like SATA is to IDE, the interface's impact on performance should be minimal. But that doesn't mean non-existant.

Also, to further earn my keep (I really hate being called condescending by the way), this 12 question FAQ that any inept user of google should have been able to find, reiterates that you can't use a SAS drive on a SATA HBA.
 
Wow- you've edited that several times. I was gonna respond, but it changed right in front of me- you keep adding more. How much time have you spent writing that all up for me? :laugh:

I bet you've spent over 30 minutes of your life trying to write up the perfect reply to an internet avatar.

You'll go far in life... you know - RL 😀

Oooooh wait - I see I'm dealing with the very proud "ATOT Night Crew counter-culture ring leader" omfg... I knew the force was strong with you- I'll just back away now.. you dork. :roll:
 
If you look at the original post time, and lasted edited time, you'll see that your calculations are off by 13 minutes. Can't do simple math? You're not the only person who reads this board either, obviously, perhaps someone else may find the information in the post useful. I'm not the one who took 10 minutes trying to diss another member by attacking thier signature with a lame Star Wars joke, presenting nothing of value to the conversation about SAS at hand.

Any more questions?
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
If you look at the original post time, and lasted edited time, you'll see that your calculations are off by 13 minutes. Can't do simple math? You're not the only person who reads this board either, obviously, perhaps someone else may find the information in the post useful. I'm not the one who took 10 minutes trying to diss another member by attacking thier signature with a lame Star Wars joke, presenting nothing of value to the conversation about SAS at hand.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

I didn't take 10 minutes lol I kept refreshing, knowing you were still altering. I wanted to make sure you were done. Anyway- you DID take 30minutes- it was 13minutes after you posted that you were still perfecting your little verbal assault. You had spent a good amount of time just writing that stuff up in the first place, then another 13mins after- I'd say you have now spent over 45minutes on me- all because I asked a question you thought I should already know I guess.

I'm not really looking to insult you or anything, I'm just surprised at all of this rudeness. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top