Sata 150MB/s or 3GB/s

[Concillian]

Actually neither is quite right, but both are on the right track. 40 pins, 80 conductors, most of which are ground wires between the transmission wires.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/confCable80-c.html

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: kleinwl
If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

It's about features, not perfomance. SATA adds a number of features and is cheaper and easier to design and implement for board designers. SATA I was basically a trial run for SATA, SATA II is when the more interesting features are brought on board that should have been in I. Required NCQ support, hot swapping, an external spec, hub support, better error correction, and one way compatiblity with SAS is a pretty good list of features. The cables are much nicer as well compared to PATA. People get too hung up on the interface transfer rates, there are always other more useful features implemented as well, but judging by how often people talk only about the transfer rates, it's no surprise that's all the HD makers ever really promote.

speed boost...300 mb/s....yeah, most harddrives can barely push 60 mb/s avg transfer speed....just a single one of my WD raptors can hit 100 on a good day....two raptors in RAID can do around 140 mb/s avg, and I've gotten 245 peak.

You're another one getting too hung up on the transfer rates to notice the other more useful features which in fact allow all the bandwidth to be used. SATA II adds hub support so you can connect more than one drive to a port, so while one drive may not be capable of 120MB/s (real world SATA I throughput), just adding a 2nd drive would exceed that limit. Any more drives and you are way past that point.

Actually, I've seen tests where the 10k rpm 74 gb raptors (and 36 gb jobs to a lesser extent) have trounced the 20K RPM seagate drives!!! Go western digital!

20k RPM drives don't exist.

Also there is frequent incorrect usage of SI symbols here. GB (gigabyte) is not the same as Gb (gigabit) and gb (grambit?) is nothing at all. MB is megabyte, Mb is megabit, and mb is millibit which does not exist.

 

[RampantAndroid]

well, sorry about your SI units....I really don't pay attention to my prefixes when abbreviating....whil posting on forums. My professors would kill me if I did it to them though

Well, I hadn't seen 20Ks either, but somone else said it, so I assumed I was wrong - 10K RPM raptors trounced 10K and 15K SCSI drives...

 

[Pariah]

Maybe 2 or 3 generations old SCSI. Current 10k SCSI is slightly ahead of the Raptor, while current 15k trashes the Raptor. The Raptor is a pretty old drive.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Just doing a quick search on google, I found this as a benchmark for the WD 740GD against some scsi drives....sadly, my max PC magazine that compared 15K scsi drives (this was late 2004, so they aren't old) The only place the Raptor lost was in writes when maxPC tested, and this HDtach test here shows the same. The raptor wins in burst and read, along with seek time.

Essentially, the Raptor won. I think that with all the features being added to SATA, we may see scsi faded out, despite the resistance to such a move.

Either way, go western digital, best HD manufaturer in my opinion.

Edit: forgot the link, hehe: http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/printpage.php?id=258

 

[Continuity27]

The big issue with 15k RPM SCSI drives is that you pay an extreme premium for very small capacities. The uses, like you said, are becoming more and more limited, when even IDE/SATA class "cheap" drives can beat them in many scenarios.

SCSI still does have a great interface for hot-swappable RAID 5/6 arrays though. Better than IDE, and SATA is right on its heels. All we need now is the same warranties and guarantees of stability you see in many SCSI drives.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ariafrost

Originally posted by: kleinwl
If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

Marketing gimmick, and it makes for a forced change to a new connection eventually = $$$. The only possible drives that max out SATA I are enterprise level 15K/20K RPM drives - normal consumer drives will not max out even SATA I for a while.

Agreed, I am also glad that interface technology is staying ahead of the output abilities of the drives them selves. otherwise we would be in some trouble.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Maybe 2 or 3 generations old SCSI. Current 10k SCSI is slightly ahead of the Raptor, while current 15k trashes the Raptor. The Raptor is a pretty old drive.

The raptor is also old technology, it has the same performance level as a 6 year old 10k SCSI drive.

 

[RampantAndroid]

6 yr old? Then why does it trounce current scsi drives?

Most of the technology was made specifically for this drive. I say it again, 15K RPM drives either fall behind, or are equal with the raptor. Else you wouldn't have everyone lauding the drive as a major advance. Sadly I dont have my max PC article, but go look it up on google, I'm sure you can find many the same souces I did a few hrs ago.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid
Just doing a quick search on google, I found this as a benchmark for the WD 740GD against some scsi drives....sadly, my max PC magazine that compared 15K scsi drives (this was late 2004, so they aren't old) The only place the Raptor lost was in writes when maxPC tested, and this HDtach test here shows the same. The raptor wins in burst and read, along with seek time.

Essentially, the Raptor won. I think that with all the features being added to SATA, we may see scsi faded out, despite the resistance to such a move.

Either way, go western digital, best HD manufaturer in my opinion.

Edit: forgot the link, hehe: http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/printpage.php?id=258

Those tbreak benchmarks are flat out wrong. You need only look at the HDtach graphs to see there is something seriously wrong with their system. I can't believe a site would actually post a "review" like that. Regardless that isn't current generation SCSI anyway.

Atlas 15K II vs 74GB Raptor

Atlas sweeps every meaningful performance test. Average 18% advantage in workstation benchmarks and 72% advantage in server benchmarks. The Raptor is no match for top of the line SCSI if performance is your only concern. It's not contest.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Those tbreak benchmarks are flat out wrong. You need only look at the HDtach graphs to see there is something seriously wrong with their system. I can't believe a site would actually post a "review" like that. Regardless that isn't current generation SCSI anyway.

Atlas 15K II vs 74GB Raptor

Atlas sweeps every meaningful performance test. Average 18% advantage in workstation benchmarks and 72% advantage in server benchmarks. The Raptor is no match for top of the line SCSI if performance is your only concern. It's not contest.

Oh yes, definately a high performance drive... but also "Price range: $583.80 - $1499.57 " :Q

That's why I would take a Raptor any day.

 

[RampantAndroid]

can you perhaps tell me what is "wrong" with that test? You syay its wrong but you give no reason......

 

[RampantAndroid]

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200311/20031111WD740GD_sp.html

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740GD_1.html

Only place the WD740GD looses it in multi user interface.....

And how is the raptor old technology???

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid
And how is the raptor old technology???

I think they just mean that the drive itself was released a looong time ago. If Western Digital made a 10k Raptor today, it would likely be much faster and maybe even in higher capacities than the Raptors available.

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid
Well, I hadn't seen 20Ks either, but somone else said it, so I assumed I was wrong - 10K RPM raptors trounced 10K and 15K SCSI drives...

LOL i loved this post....

yeah i haven't heard of them either...but it doesn't matter because the raptor beats everthing....so even though i didn't know they exist, it'd still beat it even if they did make it.

i think someone's a little to much in love.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
I think they just mean that the drive itself was released a looong time ago. If Western Digital made a 10k Raptor today, it would likely be much faster and maybe even in higher capacities than the Raptors available.

Not sure about that....if even the scsi drives are below 100GB, I doubt if WD could push the size further. The WD360s and WD740s divver only in the fact that the 740 has 2 platters (37GB) instad of 1. (and some minor firmware/hardware updates)...you can't put a third platter in and have it spin at 10K RPM as easily...esp if it needs to move quickly form one position to another, its moment of inertia will be very high (plainly, it'll have great resistance to a change in motion)

 

[RampantAndroid]

Haha, yeah, syupid mistake there, too much in love? Perhaps....I did put raptors in the last two systems I built....

When I saw someone saw 10K, 20K I thought I had been wrong int hinking they jumped 10K to 15K. Either way, the maxpc article (it was posted in the mag late 2004, maybe nov/dec) pitted it against two server HDs, a 10K, and a 15K and it trounced them in all but write.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid

Originally posted by: Continuity27
I think they just mean that the drive itself was released a looong time ago. If Western Digital made a 10k Raptor today, it would likely be much faster and maybe even in higher capacities than the Raptors available.

Not sure about that....if even the scsi drives are below 100GB, I doubt if WD could push the size further. The WD360s and WD740s divver only in the fact that the 740 has 2 platters (37GB) instad of 1. (and some minor firmware/hardware updates)...you can't put a third platter in and have it spin at 10K RPM as easily...esp if it needs to move quickly form one position to another, its moment of inertia will be very high (plainly, it'll have great resistance to a change in motion)

I don't know.

That 15k Atlas that Pariah linked to was 147GB. :Q

 

[RampantAndroid]

really? Well, I can imagine why its so expensive then, the only drives I've encountered previously were <100 GB. But I'd prefer the Raptors to stay below $200....haha.

 

[Continuity27]

I wouldn't ever buy SCSI either anymore, not since years ago when they were more popular for the desktop. I've bought many a Raptor for system drives. :thumbsup:

 

[Pariah]

Oh yes, definately a high performance drive... but also "Price range: $583.80 - $1499.57 "

And for those that don't feel like paying $600 or more, they can get one for $214 plus the cost of a cheap SCSI controller. Nice job of price searching that one.

can you perhaps tell me what is "wrong" with that test? You syay its wrong but you give no reason......

Here is what a proper STR graph of a Maxtor Atlas 15k should look like:

Atlas 15k

Now compare that to the review you linked to and how far off their readings were. If they can't even manage to get the lowlevel tests right (a difficult thing to mess up), You can automatically right off any other tests they've attempted, which are equally awful anyway.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200311/20031111WD740GD_sp.html

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740GD_1.html

Only place the WD740GD looses it in multi user interface.....

And how is the raptor old technology???

Which part of current generation do you not understand? That's a comparison with last generation 10k SCSI. There isn't a 15k drive from any generation in the comparison either.

The Raptor is over a year and a half old. That's old by hard drive standards.

Not sure about that....if even the scsi drives are below 100GB, I doubt if WD could push the size further. The WD360s and WD740s divver only in the fact that the 740 has 2 platters (37GB) instad of 1. (and some minor firmware/hardware updates)...you can't put a third platter in and have it spin at 10K RPM as easily...esp if it needs to move quickly form one position to another, its moment of inertia will be very high (plainly, it'll have great resistance to a change in motion)

Give it a rest RampantAndroid, you clearly are not up to date with hard drive tech. SCSI broke the 100GB barrier 4 or 5 years ago, which was before ATA did. 10k SCSI cracked 100GB back in 2002. Current generation 10k SCSI peaks at 300GB while 15k SCSI peaks at 147GB. The platters in the 2nd generation Raptor are not the same as the ones in the first generation. It's not just firmware tweaks. You're right about it being difficult to get 3 platters to spin at 10k. I guess that's why SCSI manufacturers don't use 3 platter designs with their 10k and 15k drives, instead deciding to skip over 3 and go straight to 4 platter designs for their highest capacities. The first 15k drive ever, the Seagate X15, had 5 platters in it. Hard drive platters only spin in one direction and do not move from one position to another.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Oh yes, definately a high performance drive... but also "Price range: $583.80 - $1499.57 "

And for those that don't feel like paying $600 or more, they can get one for $214 plus the cost of a cheap SCSI controller. Nice job of price searching that one.

You realize I was referring to the 147GB model right? You won't find THAT for less than $600.

 

[RampantAndroid]

As for what the graphs should look like, scsi drives shoudln't have that dip at the end...the best ones dont.

Yeah, price wise, recheck that one. Unless you are finding those 148GB ones after someone pissed on them, they are def not below 500.

Yes, I realize HDs don't change direction, else the seek times would be more than double. However, skipping 3 platters and going to 4 is no soultion...makes it worse, more moment of inertia. The platter numbers are due to 2 things: moment of inertia (which equates to mass, with more of it on the outside) and the density on each platter.

As for current HD tech, I only dabble in server stuff, since I have no real interest there, you have that right.

 

[Acanthus]

Hybrid and Ramdisk drives will be able to push SATAII in the near future.

Up until their release though, its useless for the most part.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Also, I've heard stuff about CD-rom\R\RW and DVD-Rom\R\RW going to the SATA interface rather than staying on IDE.....it'd help cable clutter for sure.