Is SATA currently unreliable?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
currently unreliable.

Is SATA really this unreliable?


----------

Extract follows:

<QUOTE>

Serial ATA (or SATA) products that are now shipping and available
in your local computer store may not be the most reliable products.

Testing of SATA products with tools such ATACT program are finding
a variety of problems. These problems are timeout errors, data
compare errors, and strange status errors. These problems are being
reported by a large number of people doing SATA product testing.

Hale's advice at this time is be very careful - make sure you can
return the SATA product your purchased if it does not perform as
you expect.

See the ATACT link above for some ATACT log files showing both
normal testing of a parallel ATA (PATA) drive (no errors!) and
testing of a SATA drive (lots of errors!).

<END QUOTE>
42 answers Last reply
More about sata unreliable
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
    news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    > currently unreliable.
    >
    > Is SATA really this unreliable?
    >

    Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers and
    the neon light crowd.

    Rita
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:

    > "John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
    > news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    >> This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    >> currently unreliable.
    >>
    >> Is SATA really this unreliable?
    >>

    > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers and
    > the neon light crowd.

    That is maybe a bit overstated. But in principle consumer-grade
    drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI. With RAID
    they are still reliable enough for the real world. However SCSI
    is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads). So if
    you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost matters, but
    power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
    designed RAID on IDE. If cost, power and noise matter, use
    a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.

    I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
    it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    > > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    > > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers
    and
    > > the neon light crowd.
    >
    > That is maybe a bit overstated. But in principle consumer-grade
    > drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI. With RAID
    > they are still reliable enough for the real world. However SCSI
    > is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads). So if
    > you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    > If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost matters, but
    > power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
    > designed RAID on IDE. If cost, power and noise matter, use
    > a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.
    >
    > I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
    > it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.
    >

    At this point in time I would have to agree with you. I just don't feel the
    reliability of SATA is at a point were a "set it and forget it" system can
    made using them. I'll give SATA a serious look in a year or so, also.
    Maybe they will be developed to the point were SCSI can be abandoned
    completely?


    Rita
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I am using consumer-grade SATA drives on a consumer-grade
    motherboard/controller, and they work perfectly fine. So all I can
    add is that SATA is not completely unreliable.

    That quote doesn't give any real information, so there's no way to
    evaluate its truth. Why don't you ask if anyone is currently using a
    system with SATA like you intend to build, and then you'll find out if
    they had any problems with the SATA part.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > Rita Ä Bigotowitz <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote
    >> John Smith <smitty@con.com> wrote

    >>> This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/
    >>> says that SATA is currently unreliable.

    >>> Is SATA really this unreliable?

    Anything that new never is.

    >> Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you
    >> are building a system that is going to be used for real world
    >> applications. SATA is presently only used in novelty system
    >> that are favored by over-clockers and the neon light crowd.

    Pathetic excuse for a troll, as always from the Bigotowitz.

    > That is maybe a bit overstated.

    Just a tad.

    > But in principle consumer-grade drives
    > are significantly less reliable than SCSI.

    Have fun explaining why PATA is fine and SATA aint.

    > With RAID they are still reliable enough for the real world.

    You dont have to use RAID, various other approaches
    to real time backup give much more protection against
    inevitable failure with any systems.

    > However SCSI is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads).
    > So if you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.

    And very few actually have seek intensive
    apps with personal desktop systems.

    > If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost
    > matters, but power consumption and noise does
    > not matter do carefully designed RAID on IDE.

    Or have real time backup that provides a lot more than just RAID.

    > If cost, power and noise matter, use a single
    > Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.

    Only need frequent backups if the data changes much.
    It doesnt with most personal desktop systems.

    > I have had recent compatibility isues with
    > SATA and I would say it is not mature yet.

    Corse it isnt given how long its been buyable for.

    > Give it another year or so.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:
    >> > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    >> > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    >> > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers
    > and
    >> > the neon light crowd.
    >>
    >> That is maybe a bit overstated. But in principle consumer-grade
    >> drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI. With RAID
    >> they are still reliable enough for the real world. However SCSI
    >> is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads). So if
    >> you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    >> If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost matters, but
    >> power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
    >> designed RAID on IDE. If cost, power and noise matter, use
    >> a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.
    >>
    >> I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
    >> it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.
    >>

    > At this point in time I would have to agree with you. I just don't feel the
    > reliability of SATA is at a point were a "set it and forget it" system can
    > made using them. I'll give SATA a serious look in a year or so, also.
    > Maybe they will be developed to the point were SCSI can be abandoned
    > completely?

    I don't think so. SCSI has other advantages, like longer cables.
    But it is not actually the interface that makes SCSI drives
    more reliable. It is the market. (O.k., some problems with the
    interface too, like no multi-path I/O in SATA,...). I believe
    as soon as the interface is mature it is quite possible to
    create SATA drives at SCSI speed, reloability and price levels.
    I would like that. But it is unlikely that the "cheap and fast"
    crowd will buy these, and the "SCSI crowd" will likely see no
    reason to go from a good interface to a potentially good one.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    There are 2 segments, desktop & enterprise:
    o Enterprise drive engineering is focused on Reliability + Performance
    ---- SCSI is chosen for bus bandwidth & multi-drive capability & reliability
    o Desktop drives engineering is focused on Cost + Capacity + Appropriate-Reliability
    ---- ATA/SATA is chosen for chipset cost, cabling cost, appropriate

    SATA is a mess by virtue of it being trying to be all things to all people.
    o SATA plans on integrating SCSI techniques (TCQ) outside of SAS
    ---- that's a 20-50% benefit on multi-small-random-access (MS-IE to icon files)
    o SATA drives may not however be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing
    ---- so this is a desktop benefit from SCSI-enterprise-filters-down-to-desktop

    That said the mkt is moving to smarter use of cheap h/w for certain segments.
    o SATA drives are very low cost - but lesser reliability than SCSI
    o So combine multiple low-cost drives with 3ware-RAID to get higher reliability

    Hence d2d backup servers, NAS, etc using SATA drives.
    o Enterprise - if a server goes down, image recovery faster by d2d than tape
    o Consumer - WirelessAP differentiate by remote auto-backup file server

    The interface is one thing, the mechanical spec of the drive quite another.

    The plan seems to be:
    o SATA for desktop, SAS for enterprise
    ---- thus far most 3.5" SATA drives use a bridge to ATA chipset
    ---- the 2.5" SATA Fujitsu drive I think is the first not to - and adds TCQ
    o SATA & SAS use same data cabling & connectors
    ---- SAS can allow dual porting to the drive for redundancy
    o SATA & SAS plan on the same host adapter even, just protocol difference
    ---- so enterprise with SAS HBA can mix SATA in if required

    Only a committee of taxi drivers could come to this objective by this method.

    I'd have just created SAS, and dumped SATA.
    o Desktop has 1 interface (SAS), but 2 drive standards (Desktop or Enterprise)
    o So drive standards defines mechancial reliability/performance
    o So drive standard also defines feature-set re TCQ

    Instead we have a lot of half-way house offerings.
    In the meantime we do have cheap SATA drives for 3ware RAID 12-port boxes,
    themselves redundantly arranged to create a good high-speed tape substitute in
    terms of fast recovery of data, with tape used for library offlining re access time.

    I'm still wondering how the connectors/cabling will scale - and myself waiting to
    see how SATA is implemented in 2.5" re side-or-rear-mounted connectors.
    Can't the SAS development team just invade the SATA team & regime change?
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dorothy.bradbury/panaflo.htm (Direct)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use the same
    electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At least no
    more bulky expensive cables.

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:c4m0o4$2kr5op$1@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > I don't think so. SCSI has other advantages, like longer cables.
    > But it is not actually the interface that makes SCSI drives
    > more reliable. It is the market. (O.k., some problems with the
    > interface too, like no multi-path I/O in SATA,...). I believe
    > as soon as the interface is mature it is quite possible to
    > create SATA drives at SCSI speed, reloability and price levels.
    > I would like that. But it is unlikely that the "cheap and fast"
    > crowd will buy these, and the "SCSI crowd" will likely see no
    > reason to go from a good interface to a potentially good one.
    >
    > Arno
    > --
    > For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    > GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    > "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > > > SATA can compete very well indeed in the price performance category.
    Is
    > > > there any other category?
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yes, Rod, reliability. I guess if you need a system you can depend on,
    a
    > > few extra bucks up front will save loads of money, prevent lost data and
    > > productivity you would want the reliability of SCSI.
    >
    > Now say it aloud...price performance.
    >

    Yes, you are correct. I forgot that the few pennies I saved using SATA I
    could buy more neon lights, chrome fan covers, fans with pretty red and blue
    LEDs in them, and a liquid cooler for my overclocked AMD. Thanks for the
    correction, Rod, I now see the light and will start peddling novelty PCs.
    When the customer calls bitching that he lost his data I can at least tell
    him that he has a pretty "state of the art" box.


    Rita
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:106qlj5i7qm0kb6@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
    > news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    > > currently unreliable.
    > >
    > > Is SATA really this unreliable?
    > >
    >
    > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers
    and
    > the neon light crowd.

    Clueless drivel.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:yukcc.24662$vo5.768004@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:106qlj5i7qm0kb6@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > > "John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
    > > news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > > This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    > > > currently unreliable.
    > > >
    > > > Is SATA really this unreliable?
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    > > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    > > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers
    > and
    > > the neon light crowd.
    >
    > Clueless drivel.
    >

    Of course it is, Rod.

    Rita
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:
    >
    > > "John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
    > > news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > >> This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    > >> currently unreliable.
    > >>
    > >> Is SATA really this unreliable?
    > >>
    >
    > > Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
    > > system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
    > > presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers
    and
    > > the neon light crowd.
    >
    > That is maybe a bit overstated. But in principle consumer-grade
    > drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI.

    Utter nonsense. Cite any real supporting information that assertion.

    > With RAID
    > they are still reliable enough for the real world. However SCSI
    > is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads).

    Only faster in some cases for the most expensive SCSI HDs at 3x the cost of
    a fast ATA HD...can you say Raptor.

    > So if
    > you need reliability

    Then use RAID 5 or RAID 1 etc. whether ATA or SCSI.

    > and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    > If cost does not matter much, use SCSI.

    Yep, but those lightening fast and expensive 15K RPM Fujitsus SCSI HDs.

    > If cost matters, but
    > power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
    > designed RAID on IDE.

    Forget the power consumption and noise false assertions and you got it
    right.

    > If cost, power and noise matter, use
    > a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.
    >
    > I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
    > it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.

    Doesn't need that long. I have a number of SATA Raptors running on W2K3
    Servers and they're workin fine.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Joe Brown" <jb@wap,com.cz> wrote in message
    news:406dac50$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...

    -snip

    > > However SCSI is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads).
    > > So if you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    >
    > And very few actually have seek intensive
    > apps with personal desktop systems.

    For SCSI to show an advantage it takes more than just seek intensive tasks.
    It takes saturating seek intensive tasks such that SCSI's queue of
    outstanding IOs grows to the point where SCSI HD's onboard optimizations
    actually contribute to throughput. Such a queue depth also means that a
    workstation will have to become sluggish(over saturated) to realize the
    advantage.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:IXVbc.598$V13.89@newsfe1-win...
    > There are 2 segments, desktop & enterprise:
    > o Enterprise drive engineering is focused on Reliability + Performance

    Cite any source that suggests that actual drive design....heads+actuators,
    platters and spindle bearings are technically any different betwen the top
    SCSI 'enterprise' drives and SATA drives like the Raptor. You can't because
    the technology at any given drive generation is the same and is moving fast.
    There aren't TWO fundamental designs.

    > ---- SCSI is chosen for bus bandwidth & multi-drive capability &
    reliability

    That's interface and controller card stuff and has nothing to do with drive
    physics.

    > o Desktop drives engineering is focused on Cost + Capacity +
    Appropriate-Reliability
    > ---- ATA/SATA is chosen for chipset cost, cabling cost, appropriate
    >
    > SATA is a mess by virtue of it being trying to be all things to all
    people.

    Just no.

    > o SATA plans on integrating SCSI techniques (TCQ) outside of SAS
    > ---- that's a 20-50% benefit on multi-small-random-access (MS-IE to icon
    files)

    HUH, only if there are a number of outstanding IOs, which gives a sluggish
    workstation but possibly a high performance transaction server. SATA
    command overhead is lower giving it an advantage on workstations operated
    below IO saturation.

    > o SATA drives may not however be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing
    > ---- so this is a desktop benefit from
    SCSI-enterprise-filters-down-to-desktop

    The above however is based on wild and false conjecture.

    > That said the mkt is moving to smarter use of cheap h/w for certain
    segments.
    > o SATA drives are very low cost - but lesser reliability than SCSI

    There's no indication that good SATA HDs are of lower reliability than SCSI
    HDs. Note that the warranty length is NOT an indication of reliability.

    > o So combine multiple low-cost drives with 3ware-RAID to get higher
    reliability

    Now you're gettin it.

    > Hence d2d backup servers, NAS, etc using SATA drives.
    > o Enterprise - if a server goes down, image recovery faster by d2d than
    tape

    Exactly.

    > o Consumer - WirelessAP differentiate by remote auto-backup file server
    >
    > The interface is one thing, the mechanical spec of the drive quite
    another.
    >
    > The plan seems to be:
    > o SATA for desktop, SAS for enterprise
    > ---- thus far most 3.5" SATA drives use a bridge to ATA chipset
    > ---- the 2.5" SATA Fujitsu drive I think is the first not to - and adds
    TCQ


    Well Seagate, Intel and SiliconImage demo-ed it first.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use the same
    > electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At least no
    > more bulky expensive cables.

    Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I guess mostly
    because most don't understand it well....job security and everything ya
    know.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3vkcc.41876$He5.802211@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use the
    same
    > > electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At least
    no
    > > more bulky expensive cables.
    >
    > Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I guess
    mostly
    > because most don't understand it well....job security and everything ya
    > know.
    >
    Yeah, Rod, it takes a lot of skill to send a SCSI ID, and terminate the last
    device in the chain.

    Rita
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de
    > Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:
    >
    > > "John Smith" smitty@con.com> wrote in message news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > > This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    > > > currently unreliable.
    > > >
    > > > Is SATA really this unreliable?
    > > >
    >

    [Troll snipped]

    >
    > That is maybe a bit overstated.

    > But in principle

    Nope, no principle involved.

    > consumer-grade drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI.

    Nonsense,
    there is enterprise grade SATA and there is consumer grade SCSI too.

    > With RAID they are still reliable enough for the real world.
    > However SCSI is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads).

    SCSI also has big overhead on small transfers.

    > So if you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
    > If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost matters, but
    > power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
    > designed RAID on IDE. If cost, power and noise matter, use
    > a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.
    >
    > I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
    > it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.
    >
    > Arno
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1073tl9bpm0r77d@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > news:3vkcc.41876$He5.802211@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > > Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use the
    > same
    > > > electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At
    least
    > no
    > > > more bulky expensive cables.
    > >
    > > Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I guess
    > mostly
    > > because most don't understand it well....job security and everything ya
    > > know.
    > >
    > Yeah, Rod, it takes a lot of skill to send a SCSI ID, and terminate the
    last
    > device in the chain.

    Another one I see.

    I sure that you meant to say terminate both physical ends of the cable.
    Termination has nothing to do with devices except that in SE SCSI on a
    device was frequently a convenient place to locate a terminator. Tell us
    all about the terminators onboard LVD HDs, why don't ya??

    You gotta understand SCSI terminology a little better as there's ambiguity
    between the "chain" and the "cable". How many terminations are there on a
    SCSI 'chain' that includes a bridge chip(like Adaptec's) where there's an SE
    cable section and a LVD cable section? What about an SE cable with a narrow
    section and a wide section; do ya know where all the terminations go?
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:FSmcc.25051$vo5.781166@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

    >
    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:1073tl9bpm0r77d@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > > news:3vkcc.41876$He5.802211@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > >
    > > > "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > > > Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use
    the
    > > same
    > > > > electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At
    > least
    > > no
    > > > > more bulky expensive cables.
    > > >
    > > > Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I guess
    > > mostly
    > > > because most don't understand it well....job security and everything
    ya
    > > > know.
    > > >
    > > Yeah, Rod, it takes a lot of skill to send a SCSI ID, and terminate the
    > last
    > > device in the chain.
    >
    > Another one I see.
    >
    > I sure that you meant to say terminate both physical ends of the cable.
    > Termination has nothing to do with devices except that in SE SCSI on a
    > device was frequently a convenient place to locate a terminator. Tell us
    > all about the terminators onboard LVD HDs, why don't ya??
    >

    Rod, I think we both know the deal with LVDs? But, I'll let you figure that
    one out if you're not sure. If you want to make SCSI sound so difficult
    you'll have to try harder. Any moron, even you, has enough sense to read
    the manual for the correct jumper settings that come with any SCSI or IDE
    drive if they never handled a drive before.. And if they are using "LVD"
    drives they will easily figure out where the terminator goes.


    > You gotta understand SCSI terminology a little better as there's ambiguity
    > between the "chain" and the "cable". How many terminations are there on a
    > SCSI 'chain' that includes a bridge chip(like Adaptec's) where there's an
    SE
    > cable section and a LVD cable section? What about an SE cable with a
    narrow
    > section and a wide section; do ya know where all the terminations go?
    >
    What's there to understand? You want to make it sound more complicated than
    it really is. If you're not sure RTFM.


    Rita
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:107421vplc1jkb4@corp.supernews.com...
    > > > > SATA can compete very well indeed in the price performance category.
    > Is
    > > > > there any other category?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Yes, Rod, reliability. I guess if you need a system you can depend
    on,
    > a
    > > > few extra bucks up front will save loads of money, prevent lost data
    and
    > > > productivity you would want the reliability of SCSI.
    > >
    > > Now say it aloud...price performance.
    > >
    >
    > Yes, you are correct. I forgot that the few pennies I saved using SATA I
    > could buy more neon lights, chrome fan covers, fans with pretty red and
    blue
    > LEDs in them, and a liquid cooler for my overclocked AMD. Thanks for the
    > correction, Rod, I now see the light and will start peddling novelty PCs.
    > When the customer calls bitching that he lost his data I can at least tell
    > him that he has a pretty "state of the art" box.

    Trolls are slow learners...Now say it aloud.....price performance.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I thought so...you don't know.

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:107421vec5bfpb3@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > news:FSmcc.25051$vo5.781166@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > >
    > > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1073tl9bpm0r77d@corp.supernews.com...
    > > >
    > > > "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:3vkcc.41876$He5.802211@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > > > news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > > > > Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use
    > the
    > > > same
    > > > > > electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At
    > > least
    > > > no
    > > > > > more bulky expensive cables.
    > > > >
    > > > > Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I
    guess
    > > > mostly
    > > > > because most don't understand it well....job security and everything
    > ya
    > > > > know.
    > > > >
    > > > Yeah, Rod, it takes a lot of skill to send a SCSI ID, and terminate
    the
    > > last
    > > > device in the chain.
    > >
    > > Another one I see.
    > >
    > > I sure that you meant to say terminate both physical ends of the cable.
    > > Termination has nothing to do with devices except that in SE SCSI on a
    > > device was frequently a convenient place to locate a terminator. Tell
    us
    > > all about the terminators onboard LVD HDs, why don't ya??
    > >
    >
    > Rod, I think we both know the deal with LVDs? But, I'll let you figure
    that
    > one out if you're not sure. If you want to make SCSI sound so difficult
    > you'll have to try harder. Any moron, even you, has enough sense to read
    > the manual for the correct jumper settings that come with any SCSI or IDE
    > drive if they never handled a drive before.. And if they are using "LVD"
    > drives they will easily figure out where the terminator goes.
    >
    >
    > > You gotta understand SCSI terminology a little better as there's
    ambiguity
    > > between the "chain" and the "cable". How many terminations are there on
    a
    > > SCSI 'chain' that includes a bridge chip(like Adaptec's) where there's
    an
    > SE
    > > cable section and a LVD cable section? What about an SE cable with a
    > narrow
    > > section and a wide section; do ya know where all the terminations go?
    > >
    > What's there to understand? You want to make it sound more complicated
    than
    > it really is. If you're not sure RTFM.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    >> There are 2 segments, desktop & enterprise:
    >> o Enterprise drive engineering is focused on Reliability + Performance
    >
    > Cite any source that suggests that actual drive design....heads+actuators,
    > platters and spindle bearings are technically any different betwen the top
    > SCSI 'enterprise' drives and SATA drives like the Raptor.
    >
    > There aren't TWO fundamental designs.

    Seagate claim TWO fundamental drive design segments:
    o Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference on File & Storage Technology (FAST)
    o March 2003
    o Seagate Whitepaper
    http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf

    It details a host of engineering differences between desktop & enterprise class drives.

    o TWO fundamental designs - Enterprise & Desktop
    o Enterprise drives are mechanically different to Desktop drives
    ---- Enterprise *drives* target higher reliability & performance
    ---- Desktop *drives* target higher capacity & cost competitive
    o Drive application segment goes *beyond* interface
    ---- Raptor = Enterprise segment, Cheetah = Enterprise segment
    ---- former uses SATA, latter SCSI - *both* are Enterprise segment


    > There's no indication that good SATA HDs are of lower reliability than SCSI
    > HDs. Note that the warranty length is NOT an indication of reliability.

    o What's a "good" SATA? A Raptor 10,000rpm? Well that's an Enterprise drive.
    o What's a SCSI HD? A Cheetah 10,000rpm? Well that's an Enterprise drive.

    Distinction is the *drive design* segment - enterprise or desktop.

    Indeed drive design segment is spreading into the 2.5" market:
    o Hitachi now produce an enterprise class & laptop class 2.5" 7200rpm HD
    o Enterprise class (EK) version = continual use rated, laptop class = is not


    >> SATA drives may not however be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing
    >
    > The above however is based on wild and false conjecture.

    No, it's based on two points:
    1) Two drive design segments exist
    ---- Desktop & Enterprise
    2) Current *market offerings* bias the former - at the moment
    ---- most SATA drives are desktop drives - irrespective of the interface
    ---- some SATA drives are *enterprise drives* - irrespective of the interface
    -------- a Raptor is a *drive* designed for enterprise use
    ---- most SCSI drives are enterprise drives - irrespective of the interface

    Seagate's point - and WD with Raptor - is that Drive-Design-Differs:
    o Yes the Raptor has an SATA *interface*
    o However the Raptor is an *Enterprise drive* in terms of design

    A potential problem is in the implementation of a SATA system:
    o SATA Desktop solutions exist - Highpoint
    o SATA Enterprise solutions exist - 3ware

    SATA or SCSI alone doesn't mean delineate Enterprise or Desktop.
    That ignores the cost:benefit of Raptor + 3ware = cheap multi-TB.
    o Raptor doesn't win just because of Cheap + Multi-GB + SATA
    o Raptor wins because it is Enterprise-Class *as well* = Substitution

    SATA drives may not be engineered like SCSI - you have to compare
    underlying drive technology re apples to apples, enterprise to enterprise.

    o The interface doesn't determine the class of drive
    o The design of the drive determines its class

    Ok, some will still argue SCSI is a superior enterprise interface to SATA.
    That is likely to be a depreciating argument - as SATA & mkt offerings change.

    I do think SATA is a mess - but mainly from the low-end implementation:
    o Desktop ATA drives using a SATA bridge chip
    o Desktop ATA controllers which are just that - desktop use
    o SATA connectors aren't well latching
    o SATA should have launched with multi-drives per channel

    SATA *was* urgently needed - as anyone who has implemented 18" ATA
    cable length limits with an 8-port 3ware card re routing & drive-bay distance.
    Enterprise can come in a SATA interface - Raptor & 3ware prove it.

    I hope that's clearer - there *is* a desktop v enterprise drive design difference.
    Most SATA drives are *desktop drives*, Raptor is an *enterprise drive*.

    Ok, perhaps Seagate are lying their ass off and we've been overpaying thro
    the nose for years for Enterprise class drives which were the same as Desktop.
    Perhaps, however enterprise drives seem to outlast desktop in the same task.
    Therein is the marketing & engineering win for Raptor over other SATA drives.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:%mAcc.10865$4N3.6887@newsfe1-win...
    > >> There are 2 segments, desktop & enterprise:
    > >> o Enterprise drive engineering is focused on Reliability + Performance
    > >
    > > Cite any source that suggests that actual drive
    design....heads+actuators,
    > > platters and spindle bearings are technically any different betwen the
    top
    > > SCSI 'enterprise' drives and SATA drives like the Raptor.
    > >
    > > There aren't TWO fundamental designs.
    >
    > Seagate claim TWO fundamental drive design segments:
    > o Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference on File & Storage Technology (FAST)
    > o March 2003
    > o Seagate Whitepaper
    >
    http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
    >
    > It details a host of engineering differences between desktop & enterprise
    class drives.
    >
    > o TWO fundamental designs - Enterprise & Desktop
    > o Enterprise drives are mechanically different to Desktop drives
    > ---- Enterprise *drives* target higher reliability & performance
    > ---- Desktop *drives* target higher capacity & cost competitive
    > o Drive application segment goes *beyond* interface
    > ---- Raptor = Enterprise segment, Cheetah = Enterprise segment
    > ---- former uses SATA, latter SCSI - *both* are Enterprise segment
    >
    >
    > > There's no indication that good SATA HDs are of lower reliability than
    SCSI
    > > HDs. Note that the warranty length is NOT an indication of reliability.
    >
    > o What's a "good" SATA? A Raptor 10,000rpm? Well that's an Enterprise
    drive.
    > o What's a SCSI HD? A Cheetah 10,000rpm? Well that's an Enterprise drive.
    >
    > Distinction is the *drive design* segment - enterprise or desktop.
    >
    > Indeed drive design segment is spreading into the 2.5" market:
    > o Hitachi now produce an enterprise class & laptop class 2.5" 7200rpm HD
    > o Enterprise class (EK) version = continual use rated, laptop class = is
    not
    >
    >
    > >> SATA drives may not however be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing
    > >
    > > The above however is based on wild and false conjecture.
    >
    > No, it's based on two points:
    > 1) Two drive design segments exist
    > ---- Desktop & Enterprise
    > 2) Current *market offerings* bias the former - at the moment
    > ---- most SATA drives are desktop drives - irrespective of the interface
    > ---- some SATA drives are *enterprise drives* - irrespective of the
    interface
    > -------- a Raptor is a *drive* designed for enterprise use
    > ---- most SCSI drives are enterprise drives - irrespective of the
    interface
    >
    > Seagate's point - and WD with Raptor - is that Drive-Design-Differs:
    > o Yes the Raptor has an SATA *interface*
    > o However the Raptor is an *Enterprise drive* in terms of design
    >
    > A potential problem is in the implementation of a SATA system:
    > o SATA Desktop solutions exist - Highpoint
    > o SATA Enterprise solutions exist - 3ware
    >
    > SATA or SCSI alone doesn't mean delineate Enterprise or Desktop.
    > That ignores the cost:benefit of Raptor + 3ware = cheap multi-TB.
    > o Raptor doesn't win just because of Cheap + Multi-GB + SATA
    > o Raptor wins because it is Enterprise-Class *as well* = Substitution
    >
    > SATA drives may not be engineered like SCSI - you have to compare
    > underlying drive technology re apples to apples, enterprise to enterprise.
    >
    > o The interface doesn't determine the class of drive
    > o The design of the drive determines its class
    >
    > Ok, some will still argue SCSI is a superior enterprise interface to SATA.
    > That is likely to be a depreciating argument - as SATA & mkt offerings
    change.
    >
    > I do think SATA is a mess - but mainly from the low-end implementation:
    > o Desktop ATA drives using a SATA bridge chip
    > o Desktop ATA controllers which are just that - desktop use
    > o SATA connectors aren't well latching
    > o SATA should have launched with multi-drives per channel
    >
    > SATA *was* urgently needed - as anyone who has implemented 18" ATA
    > cable length limits with an 8-port 3ware card re routing & drive-bay
    distance.
    > Enterprise can come in a SATA interface - Raptor & 3ware prove it.
    >
    > I hope that's clearer - there *is* a desktop v enterprise drive design
    difference.
    > Most SATA drives are *desktop drives*, Raptor is an *enterprise drive*.
    >
    > Ok, perhaps Seagate are lying their ass off and we've been overpaying thro
    > the nose for years for Enterprise class drives which were the same as
    Desktop.
    > Perhaps, however enterprise drives seem to outlast desktop in the same
    task.
    > Therein is the marketing & engineering win for Raptor over other SATA
    drives.
    > --

    Dorothy, thanks for the great information. Unfortunately, Rodney still
    thinks that there is onboard termination on LVD drives. But, I do agree
    that SATA is still a tad behind SCSI at this point. Like anything else, it
    will get better over the years.

    Rita
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Nope, they weren't the same. They were SCSI and they were offered with
    a
    > longer warranty and they were produced in lower volume. The hype occurred
    > when the SCSI HD zealots oversold the advantages of SCSI and projected
    them
    > into small/modest server and highend workstation environments. There SCSI
    > often is NOT the best price performance solution. That became apparent
    over
    > three years ago. Some of the old wives' tales continue to hold on.
    >


    The SCSI "zealots" must be onto something. You don't see many, if any,
    posts in here that their 10K or 15K Cheetah died. Seagate's 5-year warranty
    is also great. How come you don't see this type of protection with ATA and
    SATA drives? With the inexpensive price of U160 and U320 combined with a
    5-year warranty it's a hell of a better deal going SCSI. Generally, before
    you get to use this warranty the system the drive is in is obsolete. I must
    ask. Why would anyone want to make such large compromises and jeopardize
    their data, time, and productivity using ATA and SATA?


    Rita
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Important to distinguish between consumer & enterprise.

    SATA seems to be getting slated as much re consumer solutions:
    o Consumer -- Highpoint SATA RAID & cheap SATA desktop drive
    o Enterprise -- 3ware SATA RAID & Raptor SATA enterprise drive

    The gap isn't so much SATA, as the solutions chosen within that interface.

    Considering a lot of consumers want 2-port data RAID-1 or RAID-0,
    I still wonder why they don't pay the bit extra for 3ware over Highpoint.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:g8Bcc.10870$4N3.8213@newsfe1-win...
    > Important to distinguish between consumer & enterprise.

    Yes but do so accurately. See my other post.

    > SATA seems to be getting slated as much re consumer solutions:
    > o Consumer -- Highpoint SATA RAID & cheap SATA desktop drive
    > o Enterprise -- 3ware SATA RAID & Raptor SATA enterprise drive
    >
    > The gap isn't so much SATA, as the solutions chosen within that interface.

    Why does the above sound convoluted and like double talk?

    > Considering a lot of consumers want 2-port data RAID-1 or RAID-0,
    > I still wonder why they don't pay the bit extra for 3ware over Highpoint.

    Huh? Check the prices. There are very good solutions from Promise and
    Intel ICH5R and SiliconImage.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > But, I do agree that SATA is still a tad behind SCSI at this point.
    > Like anything else, it will get better over the years.

    I do too - I am really looking forward to 2 things:
    o 2.5" SAS -- compact cable + cheaper cable/termination + fast
    ---- Seagate Savvio - 10,000rpm albeit at a higher price
    o 2.5" SATA -- may delivery it all, quicker, cheaper & sooner
    ---- Hitachi 7200rpm - here in ATA + Extended-use version + rugged

    I will end up using 2.5"-SATA re multiple vendors & G rating.

    SATA connector annoys re size & side-positioning - ATA allowed the
    short-side-vertical (70mm) mounting, SATA forces long-side-vertical (100mm).

    SATA-2 will really begin to get the ball rolling re daisy-chaining a la SCSI
    of cheap inexpensive drives - without having to pay for 8-port $$$s cards.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:UvFcc.10973$4N3.3631@newsfe1-win...

    > > But, I do agree that SATA is still a tad behind SCSI at this point.
    > > Like anything else, it will get better over the years.
    >
    > I do too - I am really looking forward to 2 things:
    > o 2.5" SAS -- compact cable + cheaper cable/termination + fast
    > ---- Seagate Savvio - 10,000rpm albeit at a higher price
    > o 2.5" SATA -- may delivery it all, quicker, cheaper & sooner
    > ---- Hitachi 7200rpm - here in ATA + Extended-use version + rugged
    >
    > I will end up using 2.5"-SATA re multiple vendors & G rating.
    >

    The Seagate 73GB drives look nice.


    > SATA connector annoys re size & side-positioning - ATA allowed the
    > short-side-vertical (70mm) mounting, SATA forces long-side-vertical
    (100mm).
    >

    This is why nothing beats an SCA or FC backplane.


    > SATA-2 will really begin to get the ball rolling re daisy-chaining a la
    SCSI
    > of cheap inexpensive drives - without having to pay for 8-port $$$s cards.
    >

    Yeah, I never did see the logic in building a squirrel's nest of wires to do
    get half the yield of a single SCSI cable. Plus, paying extra to have an
    unreliable system defies all logic.


    Rita
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:UvFcc.10973$4N3.3631@newsfe1-win
    > > But, I do agree that SATA is still a tad behind SCSI at this point.
    > > Like anything else, it will get better over the years.
    >
    > I do too - I am really looking forward to 2 things:
    > o 2.5" SAS -- compact cable + cheaper cable/termination + fast
    > ---- Seagate Savvio - 10,000rpm albeit at a higher price
    > o 2.5" SATA -- may delivery it all, quicker, cheaper & sooner
    > ---- Hitachi 7200rpm - here in ATA + Extended-use version + rugged
    >
    > I will end up using 2.5"-SATA re multiple vendors & G rating.
    >
    > SATA connector annoys re size & side-positioning - ATA allowed the
    > short-side-vertical (70mm) mounting, SATA forces long-side-vertical (100mm).

    Oh? Why is that?

    >
    > SATA-2 will really begin to get the ball rolling re daisy-chaining a la SCSI
    > of cheap inexpensive drives - without having to pay for 8-port $$$s cards.

    There is no daisy chaining with SATA (nor SAS).
    You will need a port multiplier or some other "concentrator" (SATA) or an "expander" (SAS).

    Unless they catch on very well, they will be anything but cheap.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:IXVbc.598$V13.89@newsfe1-win
    > There are 2 segments, desktop & enterprise:
    > o Enterprise drive engineering is focused on Reliability + Performance
    > ---- SCSI is chosen for bus bandwidth & multi-drive capability & reliability
    > o Desktop drives engineering is focused on Cost + Capacity + Appropriate-Reliability
    > ---- ATA/SATA is chosen for chipset cost, cabling cost, appropriate
    >
    > SATA is a mess by virtue of it being trying to be all things to all people.

    So was ATA already.

    > o SATA plans on integrating SCSI techniques (TCQ) outside of SAS

    Whatever that is supposed to mean.

    > ---- that's a 20-50% benefit on multi-small-random-access (MS-IE to icon files)
    > o SATA drives may not however be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing

    SCSI drives as well may not be engineered like SCSI 24/7/365 thrashing.

    > ---- so this is a desktop benefit from SCSI-enterprise-filters-down-to-desktop
    >
    > That said the mkt is moving to smarter use of cheap h/w for certain segments.
    > o SATA drives are very low cost - but lesser reliability than SCSI
    > o So combine multiple low-cost drives with 3ware-RAID to get higher reliability
    >
    > Hence d2d backup servers, NAS, etc using SATA drives.
    > o Enterprise - if a server goes down, image recovery faster by d2d than tape
    > o Consumer - WirelessAP differentiate by remote auto-backup file server
    >
    > The interface is one thing, the mechanical spec of the drive quite another.
    >
    > The plan seems to be:
    > o SATA for desktop, SAS for enterprise
    > ---- thus far most 3.5" SATA drives use a bridge to ATA chipset
    > ---- the 2.5" SATA Fujitsu drive I think is the first not to - and adds TCQ

    > o SATA & SAS use same data cabling & connectors

    Almost (for internal connections). There is a nodge in the SAS connector
    to prevent it from being used with a SATA connector. Apparently it is
    possible to connect a SATA to a SAS (internal, SATA style)connector.

    > ---- SAS can allow dual porting to the drive for redundancy

    Redundancy of what?

    > o SATA & SAS plan on the same host adapter even, just protocol difference
    > ---- so enterprise with SAS HBA can mix SATA in if required

    Yes, but requires extra HW, but yes, SAS allows for connecting SATA
    drives through bridges with help of the Serial ATA Tunneled Protocol (STP).

    >
    > Only a committee of taxi drivers could come to this objective by this method.
    >
    > I'd have just created SAS, and dumped SATA.
    > o Desktop has 1 interface (SAS), but 2 drive standards (Desktop or Enterprise)
    > o So drive standards defines mechancial reliability/performance
    > o So drive standard also defines feature-set re TCQ
    >
    > Instead we have a lot of half-way house offerings.
    > In the meantime we do have cheap SATA drives for 3ware RAID 12-port boxes,
    > themselves redundantly arranged to create a good high-speed tape substitute in
    > terms of fast recovery of data, with tape used for library offlining re access time.
    >
    > I'm still wondering how the connectors/cabling will scale - and myself waiting to
    > see how SATA is implemented in 2.5" re side-or-rear-mounted connectors.
    > Can't the SAS development team just invade the SATA team & regime change?
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Folkert Reinstra wrote...
    > > Dorothy Bradbury wrote...
    > > SATA connector annoys re size & side-positioning - ATA allowed the
    > > short-side-vertical (70mm) mounting, SATA forces long-side-vertical (100mm).
    >
    > Oh? Why is that?

    o Fujitsu 2.5" SATA drives have a side mounted connector
    ---- vertical drive & rear cable exit = drive long-side is vertical (100mm)
    o All other 2.5" ATA drives have a rear mounted connector
    ---- vertical drive & rear cable exit = drive short-side is vertical (70mm)

    The Fujitsu 2.5" SATA could be mounted short-side vertical, but that will put
    the SATA cables on the top/bottom taking up space there even if rt-angle plugs.

    o It could be Fujitsu are alone in side-mounting the SATA connector.
    o I've not checked 2.5" drive dimensions re rear-mounting SATA data/power

    I have seen 2.5" SATA RAID backplanes in a single 5.25" form-factor:
    o Drives were positioned side-by-side & backplane on the rear
    o That either implies rear-mounted connector for the backplane
    o Or, a thin-film connector from the side to the rear for the backplane

    Other 2.5" SATA RAID backplanes mount the drives pushed sideways
    into the enclosure - 2.5" 100mm-length to match 3.5"-drive 100mm width.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > > SATA-2 will really begin to get the ball rolling re daisy-chaining a la SCSI
    > > of cheap inexpensive drives - without having to pay for 8-port $$$s cards.
    >
    > There is no daisy chaining with SATA (nor SAS).
    > You will need a port multiplier or some other "concentrator" (SATA) or an "expander"
    (SAS).
    > Unless they catch on very well, they will be anything but cheap.

    Trying to get the physical layer of SAS, at t10...
    o www.t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/sas1/sas1r04.pdf

    So far proving reluctant to download.

    I thought the LT objective of both SATA-2 & SAS was the ability to
    physically-chain-drives like present day (parallel) SCSI or (parallel) ATA?
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Finally got it at t10.
    o Yes indeed - it does require Expander devices for SAS
    o p76 gives a decent picture at the URL I gave (p108 of 495)

    I notice the following covers 2.5" form-factor...
    o SFF-8223, 2.5" Drive Form Factor with Serial Connector

    Gone to hunt that down - Fujitsu 2.5" SATA are side mounted,
    and SFF-8323 will also be interesting.

    Yes, SAS internal cables will use SAS cable receptable on the SAS
    target device, but SATA-style cable receptacle on initiation/expander.

    Thanks for that.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Well, I am using the WD360GD "Raptor" enterprise drives for a desktop
    machine. I have them in RAID-0, 36GB + 36GB = 72GB. This drive model
    does not support command queueing. As I understand, command queueing
    optimizes the seek order for a batch of disk operations, which
    improves performance for large batches of random, small-sector
    reads/writes typical in a server. The WD740GD 74GB is the first
    "Raptor" SATA model to support command queueing. SCSI has had command
    queueing for a long time.

    http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=10&id=1018

    These drives are both SATA, and they are reliable enough to sport a
    five year warranty. My point is that to say "SATA is generally
    unreliable" is uninformative and misleading, unless you back it up
    with some facts. And once you back it up with facts, means you narrow
    it down to a particular drive model, controller, usage pattern, etc,
    and it is not a general statement anymore. So far in this thread, I
    have seen very few facts.

    In that regard, I did have a SATA Hitachi Deskstar die on me recently,
    within a week of installing. A second one gave weird SMART readings,
    but did not die. These drives had a three-year warranty, while I've
    seen some other SATA drives with only a one-year warranty.

    BTW, people talk about Desktars being so fast, but my 7K250 was not
    noticeably faster than a Western Digital 120 GB WD1200JB ATA-100
    drive, and didn't bench much faster either. The Raptors on the other
    hand, are noticeably faster, and in RAID-0, they fly.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Older ref of SFF-8223 ... http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/document.02/02-166r0.pdf
    Need to check a later document, that is Apr'02, however...

    o 2.5" drive form factor design schematic on p12/13 shows
    ---- 2.5" connector width (A2) within the housing width (A1)
    ---- housing width (A1) is defined as 69.85mm
    ---- thus the connector is obviously on the short-side (end) of a 2.5" HD

    o Matches the designs of 5.25" backplane/RAID-cage for 2.5" I've seen
    ---- several layers of twin 2.5" drives side by side
    ---- using a short-side mounted connector to the backplane

    Need to check on connector dimensions & bend radius next tho.

    Thanks Rienstra for challenging.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Shailesh" <shailesh@nothing.but.net> wrote in message
    news:TBYcc.6682$Qv6.4403@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > Well, I am using the WD360GD "Raptor" enterprise drives for a desktop
    > machine. I have them in RAID-0, 36GB + 36GB = 72GB. This drive model
    > does not support command queueing. As I understand, command queueing
    > optimizes the seek order for a batch of disk operations, which
    > improves performance for large batches of random, small-sector
    > reads/writes typical in a server.


    Right, saturated small record random I/O which implies sluggish response
    time per I/O and therfore such contributes little to high performance
    responsive workstation solutions.

    > The WD740GD 74GB is the first
    > "Raptor" SATA model to support command queueing.

    That's not true but the question is are there any drivers/OSs that support
    ATA command queuing?

    > SCSI has had command
    > queueing for a long time.
    >
    > http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=10&id=1018
    >
    > These drives are both SATA, and they are reliable enough to sport a
    > five year warranty. My point is that to say "SATA is generally
    > unreliable" is uninformative and misleading,

    That's what the SCSI zealots have been doing for years now.

    > unless you back it up
    > with some facts. And once you back it up with facts, means you narrow
    > it down to a particular drive model, controller, usage pattern, etc,
    > and it is not a general statement anymore. So far in this thread, I
    > have seen very few facts.
    >
    > In that regard, I did have a SATA Hitachi Deskstar die on me recently,
    > within a week of installing. A second one gave weird SMART readings,
    > but did not die. These drives had a three-year warranty, while I've
    > seen some other SATA drives with only a one-year warranty.
    >
    > BTW, people talk about Desktars being so fast, but my 7K250 was not
    > noticeably faster than a Western Digital 120 GB WD1200JB ATA-100
    > drive, and didn't bench much faster either. The Raptors on the other
    > hand, are noticeably faster, and in RAID-0, they fly.

    The best price performance high performance workstation solution available
    today.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    When I phoned Fujitsu in early 2003, they said the SATA connector
    was no longer on the end of the drive - but on the side of the drive.
    On querying further they said side meaning long-side, not short-end.

    Of course, SATA is incorporated into the side of the drive by virtue
    of the way the power & data connectors are physically fitted into it.

    Email'd photo of a Fujitsu SATA drive indeed shows it on the "end".

    Well I laughed - better than crying I suppose :-)
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > As I understand, command queueing optimizes the seek order for
    > a batch of disk operations, which improves performance for large
    > batches of random, small-sector reads/writes typical in a server.

    Random, small-sector reads, is also perhaps a good description
    of MS-IE small files, icon files & so windows desktops.

    Yes, the Raptor shows you can get the cake - and eat it.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Dorothy Bradbury" <dorothy.bradbury@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:PeZcc.338$p45.59@newsfe1-win...
    > > As I understand, command queueing optimizes the seek order for
    > > a batch of disk operations, which improves performance for large
    > > batches of random, small-sector reads/writes typical in a server.
    >
    > Random, small-sector reads, is also perhaps a good description
    > of MS-IE small files, icon files & so windows desktops.

    But not in saturated I/O which is what it takes to get significant advanatge
    from a SCSI HD's onboard queue optimizations. Such saturation also means
    that it's slow to repond. As the I/Os per second go up, the nose-tail time
    per I/O goes down.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Of the many followups nobody really addressed the points made
    on the cited website, which said
    "There are 2 data compare errors because the wrong sectors were
    read from the device. Could this be a case of the command
    parameters received by the drive being corrupted?"
    "The unshielded SATA cable connector is mostly like the source of many of these
    problems. Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to
    implement an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft Reset
    rarely fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a command
    can be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not seem
    to reset anything"
    "The biggest problem with today's SATA host controllers is that SATA gets errors
    that never happened on PATA. And today's SATA host controllers do a very poor
    job of reporting these errors to the host software."

    Anybody have experiences or comments?

    John Smith <smitty@con.com> wrote:
    >This web site at http://www.ata-atapi.com/ says that SATA is
    >currently unreliable.
    >
    >Is SATA really this unreliable?
    >
    >Extract follows:
    ><QUOTE>
    >
    >Serial ATA (or SATA) products that are now shipping and available
    >in your local computer store may not be the most reliable products.
    >
    >Testing of SATA products with tools such ATACT program are finding
    >a variety of problems. These problems are timeout errors, data
    >compare errors, and strange status errors. These problems are being
    >reported by a large number of people doing SATA product testing.
    >
    >Hale's advice at this time is be very careful - make sure you can
    >return the SATA product your purchased if it does not perform as
    >you expect.
    >
    >See the ATACT link above for some ATACT log files showing both
    >normal testing of a parallel ATA (PATA) drive (no errors!) and
    >testing of a SATA drive (lots of errors!).
    >
    ><END QUOTE>

    --
    delete NOSPAM to reply by email
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Walter Epp" <N0SPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote in message
    news:2rf690te137bfmiaq3qlrbl3bqkks91cfk@4ax.com...
    > Of the many followups nobody really addressed the points made
    > on the cited website, which said
    > "There are 2 data compare errors because the wrong sectors were
    > read from the device. Could this be a case of the command
    > parameters received by the drive being corrupted?"
    > "The unshielded SATA cable connector is mostly like the source of many of
    these
    > problems. Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to
    > implement an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft
    Reset
    > rarely fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a
    command
    > can be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not
    seem
    > to reset anything"
    > "The biggest problem with today's SATA host controllers is that SATA gets
    errors
    > that never happened on PATA. And today's SATA host controllers do a very
    poor
    > job of reporting these errors to the host software."
    >
    > Anybody have experiences or comments?
    >

    Yes, all of this unreliability can be avoided using U160 or U320 SCSI.

    Rita
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 2 May 2004 15:44:46 -0400, "Rita Ä Berkowitz"
    <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Walter Epp" <N0SPAAMfor7gen@idiom.com> wrote in message
    >news:2rf690te137bfmiaq3qlrbl3bqkks91cfk@4ax.com...
    >> Of the many followups nobody really addressed the points made
    >> on the cited website, which said
    >> "There are 2 data compare errors because the wrong sectors were
    >> read from the device. Could this be a case of the command
    >> parameters received by the drive being corrupted?"
    >> "The unshielded SATA cable connector is mostly like the source of many of
    >these
    >> problems. Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to
    >> implement an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft
    >Reset
    >> rarely fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a
    >command
    >> can be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not
    >seem
    >> to reset anything"
    >> "The biggest problem with today's SATA host controllers is that SATA gets
    >errors
    >> that never happened on PATA. And today's SATA host controllers do a very
    >poor
    >> job of reporting these errors to the host software."
    >>
    >> Anybody have experiences or comments?
    >>
    >
    >Yes, all of this unreliability can be avoided using U160 or U320 SCSI.
    >
    >Rita
    >

    How about a promise SX card and ATA drives ?
Ask a new question

Read More

SATA Products Storage