Sata 2: a "Why Not" query

[Xsorovan]

I've seen the Sata 1 10k RPM HDs from Western Digital, but I have a question: Why hasn't anyone done a 10k RPM on a Sata 2 drive yet? All the talk about Sata putting the smack down on SCSI, it seems to me that a 10k Sata2 drive would/ could make that happen.

Thoughts?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

because even a raptor can't use all of SATA(1)'s bandwidth. There are no rotating drives in existance (AFAIK) that can even come close to 300MB/sec

Bandwidth != throughput

Besides, the raptor was meant to be an entry level enterprise drive.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Xsorovan
I've seen the Sata 1 10k RPM HDs from Western Digital, but I have a question: Why hasn't anyone done a 10k RPM on a Sata 2 drive yet? All the talk about Sata putting the smack down on SCSI, it seems to me that a 10k Sata2 drive would/ could make that happen.

Thoughts?

no it couldn't as even ata133 is not fully utilized. also, even a 15k u320 scsi hdd a str of ~90MB/s, so that doesn't even full saturate a 32bit pci slot or a ata133 specs.

 

[WobbleWobble]

I've read that WD said that their SATA2 technology wasn't mature enough for an Enterprise level drive yet.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Xsorovan
I've seen the Sata 1 10k RPM HDs from Western Digital, but I have a question: Why hasn't anyone done a 10k RPM on a Sata 2 drive yet? All the talk about Sata putting the smack down on SCSI, it seems to me that a 10k Sata2 drive would/ could make that happen.

SATA putting the smack down on SCSI is anything if not crap. Some SATA controllers (Areca) can actually get results similar to nice SCSI controllers, but they're still not up to a good RAID implementation with 15k RPM drives.

The Raptor is sepcifically designed for single-drive desktop use, and does good as lots of reading. For high-end desktop, or single-drive web server, it's a fantastic drive. Throw it real random access, and its lunch money gets taken by Fujitsu, Maxtor beats it up a little, and Seagate gives it a wedgie.

Thoughts?

It's called SAS. It will be compatible with SATA, and replace SCSI. It looks like HDD manufacturers want to go to it at 22k RPMs (or is it 20k?), to really differentiate SATA, SCSI, and SAS, so that there will be a wide adoption of SAS fairly quickly. It could bridge the gap for low-end machines, while still offering benefits for those willing to shell out the extra for nice server parts. Or not. We'll have to see how the drives themselves turn out.

SATA-II realistically offers nothing for the desktop user. It clearly offers (at least as SATA 2.5) benefits to low-end servers.