Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better?

Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 2:49:18 PM

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

Hi everybody,

It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.

Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.

More about : sata ide ata 133

Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 6:28:25 PM

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

Jim Owens wrote:

> It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
> this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
> interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>
> Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
> to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.



sata has no performance benefit over ide (100/133)

given compatibility issues, you're still far
better off with ide drives

and if the issue is easy backup, you'll find
that dos Ghost works fine with ide drives. :) 
imho, sata is still not ready for prime time
(unless all you do as an OS is 2k or xp, but
if you do Linux, drivers might be an issue
there too (are you doing sata raid? or what?)

check www.newegg.com coz 5 weeks ago they
had oem NSW2003 with dos ghost on it for $20

bill
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 7:42:59 PM

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

Jim Owens wrote:

>
> Hi everybody,
>
> It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
> this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
> interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>
> Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
> to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.

SATA per se gives no real advantages at this time except longer, thinner
cables and support for hot-swap if the controller allows it (all of them
are supposed to but not all do). The benefit of the higher interface speed
is negligible in the real world--no commercially available drive has a
sustained transfer rate high enough to strain UDMA-100.

The real benefit is drives that are made with SATA interfaces generally
offer a bit more performance than those with PATA interfaces--the 10,000
RPM Western Digital Raptors are available only with SATA interfaces and
some other manufacturers ship their SATA drives with acoustic management
turned off and their PATA drives that are otherwise identical with it
turned on--with it turned on the drive is quieter but slower. Also, the
latest generation of ATA RAID controllers are made for SATA, not PATA, if
you need high performance RAID.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 10:19:34 PM

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

Jim Owens wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
> this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
> interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>
> Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
> to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>
>

Since all ATA HDs have STRs of well under 100 MB/s, there is no current
bandwidth advantage of SATA over PATA. That said, the fastest ATA HDs
(the Raptors) happen to have SATA instead of PATA interfaces.

The real advantage of SATA over PATA today is better cabling. Those skinny
SATA cables do not block case airflow as much as wide PATA cables. And, SATA
cables are longer than spec-conforming PATA cables, which matters in large
PC and server cases.

Finally, SATA has a future -- including higher bandwidth -- while PATA is,
IMHO, at its end of life.
--
Cheers, Bob
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 10:34:45 PM

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cjkd04089q@news4.newsguy.com...
> Jim Owens wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard
drive
> > this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards
I'm
> > interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
> >
> > Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's
more
> > to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> > advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>
> SATA per se gives no real advantages at this time except longer, thinner
> cables and support for hot-swap if the controller allows it (all of them
> are supposed to but not all do). The benefit of the higher interface
speed
> is negligible in the real world--no commercially available drive has a
> sustained transfer rate high enough to strain UDMA-100.
>
> The real benefit is drives that are made with SATA interfaces generally
> offer a bit more performance than those with PATA interfaces--the 10,000
> RPM Western Digital Raptors are available only with SATA interfaces and
> some other manufacturers ship their SATA drives with acoustic management
> turned off and their PATA drives that are otherwise identical with it
> turned on--with it turned on the drive is quieter but slower. Also, the
> latest generation of ATA RAID controllers are made for SATA, not PATA, if
> you need high performance RAID.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I would add that with SATA you can attach up to 12 drives to a RAID
controller and save CPU cycles on a severe load. Depending on what you plan
to do with your rig, this may or may not be of interest.

Also no more messing with master/slaves jumpers as each drive has its own
cable.

I'll join others in saying that the sentence "SATA is not ready for prime
time" is utter nonsense. Linux will catch up sooner or later.

Anyway, if your main motivation is saving money PATA is cheaper...

Cheers

Art
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 2, 2004 1:26:36 AM

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

"willbill" <trek@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:cjkba501l6i@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Jim Owens wrote:
>
> > It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard
drive
> > this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards
I'm
> > interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
> >
> > Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's
more
> > to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> > advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>
>
>
> sata has no performance benefit over ide (100/133)

Except that the fast ATA HD is SATA and that's the WDC Raptor.

> given compatibility issues, you're still far
> better off with ide drives

Nonsense. There no significant compatibility issues.

> and if the issue is easy backup, you'll find
> that dos Ghost works fine with ide drives. :) 
> imho, sata is still not ready for prime time

Nonsense.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 2, 2004 1:52:35 AM

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

"willbill" <trek@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:cjkba501l6i@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Jim Owens wrote:
> and if the issue is easy backup, you'll find
> that dos Ghost works fine with ide drives. :) 
> imho, sata is still not ready for prime time

I have used Ghost with SATA drives just fine as well.

--Dan
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 2, 2004 3:58:28 AM

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

ahedge wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cjkd04089q@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Jim Owens wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Hi everybody,
>> >
>> > It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard
> drive
>> > this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards
> I'm
>> > interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>> >
>> > Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's
> more
>> > to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
>> > advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>>
>> SATA per se gives no real advantages at this time except longer, thinner
>> cables and support for hot-swap if the controller allows it (all of them
>> are supposed to but not all do). The benefit of the higher interface
> speed
>> is negligible in the real world--no commercially available drive has a
>> sustained transfer rate high enough to strain UDMA-100.
>>
>> The real benefit is drives that are made with SATA interfaces generally
>> offer a bit more performance than those with PATA interfaces--the 10,000
>> RPM Western Digital Raptors are available only with SATA interfaces and
>> some other manufacturers ship their SATA drives with acoustic management
>> turned off and their PATA drives that are otherwise identical with it
>> turned on--with it turned on the drive is quieter but slower. Also, the
>> latest generation of ATA RAID controllers are made for SATA, not PATA, if
>> you need high performance RAID.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> I would add that with SATA you can attach up to 12 drives to a RAID
> controller and save CPU cycles on a severe load. Depending on what you
> plan to do with your rig, this may or may not be of interest.

Doesn't really have anything to do with SATA--you can attach 12 drives to a
PATA RAID controller too.

> Also no more messing with master/slaves jumpers as each drive has its own
> cable.
>
> I'll join others in saying that the sentence "SATA is not ready for
> prime time" is utter nonsense. Linux will catch up sooner or later.

There are other problems--some of the current generation of chips are not
fully standards-compliant for example. The 2.6 kernel does have SATA
support, but I don't know how complete.

> Anyway, if your main motivation is saving money PATA is cheaper...
>
> Cheers
>
> Art

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 2, 2004 9:17:52 PM

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

dg wrote:

> "willbill" wrote

>> and if the issue is easy backup, you'll find
>> that dos Ghost works fine with ide drives. :) 
>> imho, sata is still not ready for prime time


> I have used Ghost with SATA drives just fine as well.



would you kindly give some details, TIA

e.g. are you talking aobut backing up the whole
drive or only part of it?

and from within DOS or Windows or both?

assuming you mean Windows, which specific
Windows and with what service pack?

if one only has a single large sata hard drive
for Windows 2000 or XP (say 160GB with only
a single NTFS c:\ partition on it), can that
be backed up up OK from within Windows so that
it can replace a failed original sata drive?

bill
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 3, 2004 10:10:11 AM

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

"willbill" <trek@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:cjnbgu01gkg@enews2.newsguy.com...
> would you kindly give some details, TIA
>
> e.g. are you talking aobut backing up the whole
> drive or only part of it?
>
> and from within DOS or Windows or both?
>
> assuming you mean Windows, which specific
> Windows and with what service pack?
>
> if one only has a single large sata hard drive
> for Windows 2000 or XP (say 160GB with only
> a single NTFS c:\ partition on it), can that
> be backed up up OK from within Windows so that
> it can replace a failed original sata drive?
>
> bill
>

Sure. On my personal workstation at home I use an Intel D875PBZLK
motherboard with onboard SATA /ICH5R raid. I use 2 raptors in a raid 0
config, formatted to the full capacity, NTFS partition. I use Norton Ghost
2003. I have booted to a ghost floppy using MS-DOS and made a complete disk
backup to another raid array made up of SATA disks. The second array uses a
LSI Megaraid 150-4 controller and 3 WD 250GB SATA disks in a raid 5 config.
It may sound quite complicated, but within ghost you just see a source drive
and a destination-its not confusing at all. I have used it on Dell
Poweredge 2600 servers too, with PERC SCSI raid, no problem.

When you say back up within windows, I don't quite understand. When I try
to do a ghost backup within windows, the computer reboots and starts in a
DOS mode running ghost. Its not like the operation is completed within
windows. And yes, this works too just as well as a boot disk. A program
called Acronis Tru Image will image from within windows and at scheduled
times, ghost can't do that as far as I know. If your 160GB drive has been
backed up to a ghost image, but fails the next day, you can indeed restore
to the last ghost image. You just remove the bad drive and install a fresh
empty drive, boot to a ghost floppy and go through the options to restore an
image to a disk-and choose the fresh drive. Upon the next reboot you will
not even notice a difference between the old drive and your new drive-its
that simple.

I should say that on some SATA equipped machines I have run ghost 2003 on,
you need to disable "SATA enhanced mode" in the BIOS otherwise ghost locks
up while loading. Why this is necessary I don't know, but it doesn't seem
to cause any problems once you are aware of what needs to be done. I would
guess this will be fixed in future releases.

I love ghost, once you know ghost you can make HUGE tasks take only the
slightest amount of effort, like installing 300 new PCs in a library. I
would really like to become a Acronis Truimage expert, it has features that
amaze me.

Let me know if you have any more questions.
--Dan
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 3, 2004 11:17:49 AM

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

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:49:18 -0700, "Jim Owens"
<bobsgambles@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>Hi everybody,
>
> It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
>this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
>interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>
> Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
>to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
>advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>


SATA drives are mostly ATA drives with an extra chip which converts
the "old" ATA to "new" SATA. Just an extra layer of conversions added
to a simple ATA drive. Lots more to go wrong. But our resident SATA
gurus all had to have them and want you to have one too.

It's an IQ test really, with the usual jar of vaseline on the side ;) 

There's a future for SATA when it becomes a more mature technology,
but not for the "ATA with SATA converter chip" drives you'd buy today.

If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
beta tester.

Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.

And don't believe everything they want to sell you.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 3, 2004 4:22:22 PM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:49:18 -0700, "Jim Owens"
> <bobsgambles@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>> It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
>>this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
>>interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
>>
>> Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's more
>>to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
>>advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
>>
>
>
> SATA drives are mostly ATA drives with an extra chip which converts
> the "old" ATA to "new" SATA. Just an extra layer of conversions added
> to a simple ATA drive. Lots more to go wrong. But our resident SATA
> gurus all had to have them and want you to have one too.
>
> It's an IQ test really, with the usual jar of vaseline on the side ;) 
>
> There's a future for SATA when it becomes a more mature technology,
> but not for the "ATA with SATA converter chip" drives you'd buy today.
>
> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
> beta tester.
>
> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.

So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
fast or quiet.

> And don't believe everything they want to sell you.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 3, 2004 5:24:50 PM

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

In article <gYj7d.468207$OB3.35505@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Ron Reaugh <rondashreaugh@att.net> writes

>Nonsense. There no significant compatibility issues.

Really? Look up Silicon Image and Seagate's spat over the Mod15Write
bug. Both companies pointing the finger at each other and the user is
in the middle.

--
..sigmonster on vacation
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 3, 2004 8:51:18 PM

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

dg wrote:

> "willbill" wrote

>> would you kindly give some details, TIA
>>
>> e.g. are you talking aobut backing up the whole
>> drive or only part of it?
>>
>> and from within DOS or Windows or both?
>>
>> assuming you mean Windows, which specific
>> Windows and with what service pack?
>>
>> if one only has a single large sata hard drive
>> for Windows 2000 or XP (say 160GB with only
>> a single NTFS c:\ partition on it), can that
>> be backed up up OK from within Windows so that
>> it can replace a failed original sata drive?

> Sure. On my personal workstation at home I use an Intel D875PBZLK
> motherboard with onboard SATA /ICH5R raid. I use 2 raptors in a raid 0
> config, formatted to the full capacity, NTFS partition.


you use a raid 0 as your boot c:\ partition?

with which ver. of Windows?

and which SP?

Raptors aren't that big, so what is your
raid 0, maybe 60 or 80GB in overall size?


> I use Norton Ghost 2003.
> I have booted to a ghost floppy using MS-DOS


by "MS-DOS" do you mean a boot floppy disk
that is made from Win98? if yes, imho
you'd be better to call that DOS98


> and made a complete disk
> backup to another raid array made up of SATA disks. The second array uses a
> LSI Megaraid 150-4 controller and 3 WD 250GB SATA disks in a raid 5 config.
> It may sound quite complicated, but within ghost you just see a source drive
> and a destination-its not confusing at all. I have used it on Dell
> Poweredge 2600 servers too, with PERC SCSI raid, no problem.


that looks interesting. :)  500GB in the
2nd raid should give you enough for
several images of your c:\ (on the 1st raid,
with room to spare too

out of curiosity, do you use more than
one NTFS partition for the 2nd raid?

i'm also assuming you run some drivers
in the config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
for DOS-Ghost-2003 to be able to see
both raid arrays? or does DOS-Ghost-2003
somehow hadle this on it's own?

i'm not trying to put you down but have
to ask this:

have you ever restored any of those backups
of your c:\ to a completely different c:\
on different sata disks, and actually been
able to boot up off of the restored c:\
without a hitch???

(say two completely different sata drives that
you've defined in the same way on the same mobo
(i.e. a raid 0 that should be your boot drive
after the restore))

fwiw, i personally prefer to keep my backups either
completely off the machine (as a separate single hard
drive that i've cloned using DOS Ghost via a boot floppy),
or as a zip file (which i've done up to about a 3GB
zip file using DOS Info Zip and DOSLFNBK. but with
these rapidly increasing HD sizes my future zipping
will be limited to my small 2GB c:\ partition


>
> When you say back up within windows, I don't quite understand.


i mean not shutting the GUI OS (which is on c:\)
down while actually doing the backup; and still
being able to create a full image of c:\ that
will work upon restore with a different hard drive


> When I try
> to do a ghost backup within windows, the computer reboots and starts in a
> DOS mode running ghost.


ok, which means it's some flavor of DOS

again, which Windows are you using?


> Its not like the operation is completed within windows.


afaik, it's either very hard or even impossible for
a GUI OS to do a full image type backup due to all the
open files on the c:\ partition that you're trying
to backup


> And yes, this works too just as well as a boot disk. A program
> called Acronis Tru Image will image from within windows and at scheduled
> times, ghost can't do that as far as I know.



is this Acronis Tru Image the company that
also provides the "DOS" that gets booted?
and does it's DOS boot process load drivers
for the two raid arrays that you have?

have you been able to get any insight
into exactly what gets run/loaded during
the DOS boot what you do a Windows initiated
DOS backup for your 1st raid array?


> If your 160GB drive has been
> backed up to a ghost image, but fails the next day, you can indeed restore
> to the last ghost image. You just remove the bad drive and install a fresh
> empty drive, boot to a ghost floppy and go through the options to restore an
> image to a disk-and choose the fresh drive. Upon the next reboot you will
> not even notice a difference between the old drive and your new drive-its
> that simple.


have you actually ever done a real
restore of your very large home workstation
setup with those 2 large raid hard drive arrays
to be sure that it really can be done?


>
> I should say that on some SATA equipped machines I have run ghost 2003 on,
> you need to disable "SATA enhanced mode" in the BIOS otherwise ghost locks
> up while loading. Why this is necessary I don't know, but it doesn't seem
> to cause any problems once you are aware of what needs to be done. I would
> guess this will be fixed in future releases.


that you for that comment, i'll keep it in mind
for the weeks ahead

>
> I love ghost,


ditto. :) 

from what you've said (above), i'm
going to have to load the Windows Ghost
and see what it does

bill


> once you know ghost you can make HUGE tasks take only the
> slightest amount of effort, like installing 300 new PCs in a library. I
> would really like to become a Acronis Truimage expert, it has features that
> amaze me.
>
> Let me know if you have any more questions.
> --Dan
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 2:17:50 AM

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

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:rY55C5BS++XBFwjG@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <gYj7d.468207$OB3.35505@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Ron Reaugh <rondashreaugh@att.net> writes
>
> >Nonsense. There no significant compatibility issues.
>
> Really? Look up Silicon Image and Seagate's spat over the Mod15Write
> bug. Both companies pointing the finger at each other and the user is
> in the middle.

That's from back in March and resolved now.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 2:20:20 AM

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

<heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
news:0j10m0d8kd99i8c5n69s2h63vlmo7gna7c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:49:18 -0700, "Jim Owens"
> <bobsgambles@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi everybody,
> >
> > It's time for a new computer, and I was thinking of a SATA hard drive
> >this time around, however... I see that (at least on the motherboards I'm
> >interested in) the SATA throughput is 150 MB/s.
> >
> > Not much of a bump over ATA 133 at a glance, but I'm sure there's
more
> >to the story than that. Could anyone clue me in on what additional
> >advantages the SATA standard brings over IDE drives? Thanks very much.
> >
>
>
> SATA drives are mostly ATA drives with an extra chip which converts
> the "old" ATA to "new" SATA. Just an extra layer of conversions added
> to a simple ATA drive. Lots more to go wrong. But our resident SATA
> gurus all had to have them and want you to have one too.
>
> It's an IQ test really, with the usual jar of vaseline on the side ;) 
>
> There's a future for SATA when it becomes a more mature technology,
> but not for the "ATA with SATA converter chip" drives you'd buy today.

Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.

> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
> beta tester.

Catch up.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 8:17:10 AM

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

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>
>...
>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
>
>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
>not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
>fast or quiet.


Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....

"...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.

We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."


Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
extra layer of conversions added on.

Guess which one would be faster ?



PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?

Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;) 
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 8:21:02 AM

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

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:
>
>Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
>I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
>
>> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
>> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
>> beta tester.
>
>Catch up.
>

Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
off your precious SATA raptor.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....

Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 10:40:49 AM

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

"willbill" <trek@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:cjpsst0njv@enews4.newsguy.com...
> you use a raid 0 as your boot c:\ partition?
>
> with which ver. of Windows?
>
> and which SP?
>
> Raptors aren't that big, so what is your
> raid 0, maybe 60 or 80GB in overall size?


Yes, raid 0 on the C:. They are the 74 gb drives so the full NTFS formatted
array is 138.49 GB. XP SP1.

> by "MS-DOS" do you mean a boot floppy disk
> that is made from Win98? if yes, imho
> you'd be better to call that DOS98

When you make a ghost 2003 boot disk you are given the choice: Boot to PC
DOS or MS DOS, I chose MS-DOS. I don't want to confuse anybody by using
terminology that ghost doesn't use, even if "MS-DOS" is really based on a
win98 boot disk, which it was in this case.

> > and made a complete disk
> > backup to another raid array made up of SATA disks. The second array
uses a
> > LSI Megaraid 150-4 controller and 3 WD 250GB SATA disks in a raid 5
config.
> > It may sound quite complicated, but within ghost you just see a source
drive
> > and a destination-its not confusing at all. I have used it on Dell
> > Poweredge 2600 servers too, with PERC SCSI raid, no problem.
>
>
> that looks interesting. :)  500GB in the
> 2nd raid should give you enough for
> several images of your c:\ (on the 1st raid,
> with room to spare too

Yep, its a lot of space. I was kind of shooting for overkill because I
really hate running out of space and dealing with adding or replacing disks.

> out of curiosity, do you use more than
> one NTFS partition for the 2nd raid?

Just one partition. I didn't really research that move, but I do like it.

> i'm also assuming you run some drivers
> in the config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
> for DOS-Ghost-2003 to be able to see
> both raid arrays? or does DOS-Ghost-2003
> somehow hadle this on it's own?

Nothing special, just a standard ghost boot disk.

> i'm not trying to put you down but have
> to ask this:
>
> have you ever restored any of those backups
> of your c:\ to a completely different c:\
> on different sata disks, and actually been
> able to boot up off of the restored c:\
> without a hitch???

No I have not, but I strongly believe it would work just fine because it has
already shown it is capable of both reading and writing to arrays as if they
were just single disks. I have used Ghost explorer and successfully
retrieved data from an image on several occasions.

snip
> > When I try
> > to do a ghost backup within windows, the computer reboots and starts in
a
> > DOS mode running ghost.
>
>
> ok, which means it's some flavor of DOS
>
> again, which Windows are you using?

XP sp1.

>
> > Its not like the operation is completed within windows.
>
>
> afaik, it's either very hard or even impossible for
> a GUI OS to do a full image type backup due to all the
> open files on the c:\ partition that you're trying
> to backup
I am pretty sure acronis tru image does it, I used a demo from them and made
an image. I didn't restore it however, I just wanted to check out the
backup scheduler and get a feel for it. Another amazing tech achievment,
this workstation started with 1 raptor, I added the 2nd raptor a month later
and used Intels software for this board to actually convert 1 disk into a 2
disk raid 0 array-while windows was running!

>
> > And yes, this works too just as well as a boot disk. A program
> > called Acronis Tru Image will image from within windows and at scheduled
> > times, ghost can't do that as far as I know.
>
>
>
> is this Acronis Tru Image the company that
> also provides the "DOS" that gets booted?
> and does it's DOS boot process load drivers
> for the two raid arrays that you have?
I don't know.

> have you been able to get any insight
> into exactly what gets run/loaded during
> the DOS boot what you do a Windows initiated
> DOS backup for your 1st raid array?
For ghost right? Can't remember how, but I think it does something to your
normal boot partition so that it isn't "active" anymore, then boots up
somehow to ghost which must have been put somewhere strategic.

>
> > If your 160GB drive has been
> > backed up to a ghost image, but fails the next day, you can indeed
restore
> > to the last ghost image. You just remove the bad drive and install a
fresh
> > empty drive, boot to a ghost floppy and go through the options to
restore an
> > image to a disk-and choose the fresh drive. Upon the next reboot you
will
> > not even notice a difference between the old drive and your new
drive-its
> > that simple.
>
>
> have you actually ever done a real
> restore of your very large home workstation
> setup with those 2 large raid hard drive arrays
> to be sure that it really can be done?

Actually no, but again I am very confident that it would work just fine.
The images made from the arrays are proven good images, I have restored
files from them on several occasions. I have on several occasions replaced
drives on single disk workstations and restored ghost images with no
problems at all. Since the raid hardware makes the arrays appear as single
disks, and has shown to read properly, I think it would work if I needed to
do so. But I understand that without doing it, I am not 100% sure.

--Dan
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 12:55:37 PM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
>>I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
>>
>>> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
>>> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
>>> beta tester.
>>
>>Catch up.
>>
>
> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
> off your precious SATA raptor.
>
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>
> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 12:58:20 PM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>>
>>...
>>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
>>
>>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
>>not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
>>fast or quiet.
>
>
> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
>
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....

So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
the point you miss.

> "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
> its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
> on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
> Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
> products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
>
> We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
>
>
> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
> extra layer of conversions added on.
>
> Guess which one would be faster ?

Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
have them.

> PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
>
> Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;) 

Actually it's called idiocy.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 4, 2004 3:50:34 PM

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

dg wrote:

> "willbill" wrote

>> by "MS-DOS" do you mean a boot floppy disk
>> that is made from Win98? if yes, imho
>> you'd be better to call that DOS98


> When you make a ghost 2003 boot disk you are given the choice: Boot to PC
> DOS or MS DOS, I chose MS-DOS. I don't want to confuse anybody by using
> terminology that ghost doesn't use, even if "MS-DOS" is really based on a
> win98 boot disk, which it was in this case.



see comment a ways below


>> ... 500GB in the 2nd raid should give you enough...


>> out of curiosity, do you use more than
>> one NTFS partition for the 2nd raid?


> Just one partition. I didn't really research that move, but I do like it.


interesting, a single NTFS partition
at 500GB, that gets my attention and
made me take a loooong look thru my new
System Commander 8.1 manual. :) 

(stuff like partition size limits isn't
found where you 1st look, at least not
by the rear index for "NTFS")

SC 8.1 states that NTFS (current or the
older NT NTFS) can have partitions with size
of 1,000+ GB! (on p.27 under OS and Partition
Size Limitations)

looking immediately above that, i see
that they give the same number for FAT32!!


>>i'm also assuming you run some drivers
>>in the config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
>>for DOS-Ghost-2003 to be able to see
>>both raid arrays? or does DOS-Ghost-2003
>>somehow hadle this on it's own?
>
>
> Nothing special, just a standard ghost boot disk.
>
>
>>i'm not trying to put you down but have
>>to ask this:
>>
>> have you ever restored any of those backups
>> of your c:\ to a completely different c:\
>> on different sata disks, and actually been
>> able to boot up off of the restored c:\
>> without a hitch???
>
>
> No I have not, but I strongly believe it would work just fine because it has
> already shown it is capable of both reading and writing to arrays as if they
> were just single disks. I have used Ghost explorer and successfully
> retrieved data from an image on several occasions.


worst case would be if you lost both the
mobo as well the 1st raid array leaving
only the 2nd raid where your image backups
of c:\ are (tough situation, but highly unlikely)

otoh, if one of your Raptors dies your
c:\ raid 0 is gone

and if that happens your WinXP is gone too
and your only easy recovery is that "DOS"
boot floppy and it had better be able to
see the 2nd raid on its own coz otherwize
you're gonna have to re-install XP and
then reinstall Ghost on it to get back
all of your c:\, not to mention that
it's still not clear to me if an actual
image restore of c:\ will boot properly,
given your specific setup (if it won't,
i don't know if there's any easy way
to get the XP boot back short of something
like having saved it with a boot manager
like System Commander)

just some thoughts, though from what
you've said odds are that you're OK

fwiw, i bought 2 160GB sata disks 6 weeks
ago and still haven't used them (LOL at
myself, but mobo and case space issues,
and driver issues, and my lack of understanding
how DOS Ghost might or might not see a sata single
or a sata raid made me decide to leave it to last)

if i could do it over i wouldn't touch sata

but maybe there's hope (LOL)

thank you for some ideas on sata. :) 
i'll find out in the next 2 weeks

bill
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:00:43 AM

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

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:58:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
>>>
>>>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
>>>not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
>>>fast or quiet.
>>
>>
>> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
>>
>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>
>So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
>the point you miss.
>
>> "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
>> its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
>> on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
>> Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
>> products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
>>
>> We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
>> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
>> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
>> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
>>
>>
>> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
>> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
>> extra layer of conversions added on.
>>
>> Guess which one would be faster ?
>
>Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
>have them.
>
>> PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
>>
>> Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;) 
>
>Actually it's called idiocy.

You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.

Poor even by your sorry standards.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:02:50 AM

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

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:55:37 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
>>>I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
>>>
>>>> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
>>>> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
>>>> beta tester.
>>>
>>>Catch up.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
>> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
>> off your precious SATA raptor.
>>
>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>>
>> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.
>
>I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
>would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.


Obviously.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:31:12 AM

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

<heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message

> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
> extra layer of conversions added on.
>
> Guess which one would be faster ?

A tie...get a clue.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:31:13 AM

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

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:12 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>
><heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
>
>> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
>> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
>> extra layer of conversions added on.
>>
>> Guess which one would be faster ?
>
>A tie...get a clue.
>

Nonsense, you and Clarke are such fawning clowns.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:31:20 AM

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

<heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
news:D ac2m0tdckiri1e2s7hogslkvdr9q2f44r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just
fine.
> >I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
> >
> >> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
> >> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
> >> beta tester.
> >
> >Catch up.
> >
>
> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
> off your precious SATA raptor.

Clueless.

> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>
> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.

Everything on that site supports my position. Your position doesn't exist.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:31:21 AM

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

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>
><heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
>news:D ac2m0tdckiri1e2s7hogslkvdr9q2f44r@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just
>fine.
>> >I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
>> >
>> >> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
>> >> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
>> >> beta tester.
>> >
>> >Catch up.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
>> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
>> off your precious SATA raptor.
>
>Clueless.
>
>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>>
>> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.
>
>Everything on that site supports my position. Your position doesn't exist.
>

Nonsense, Ron. Tell me, are you still involved in selling product or
services in this area ?

Sorry to cause you loss of face.

But... you are so full of it.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:35:13 AM

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

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:3d818cf8da222efc844f090deb602c67@dizum.com...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:55:37 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
> >would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.
>
> "Upon tilting the drive around its transverse axis, our attention is drawn
> to the only chip located on the underside of the board. This is a Serial
> ATA Bridge from Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to
> make products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA."
>
> The implication is that the Marvel chip is a kludge, present because the
> drive doesn't support "native" SATA,

Yep, a 'kludge' that is the fastest ATA drive on the market.

> like Seagate claims of their drives.
> And along those lines (or lies), a native interface will be faster than a
> design that has to pass the data through circuitry that converts that data
> to the target interface.

There is no reason to believe that such will provided significantly better
performance.

> So in keeping all of this in mind, one could
> assume that the Raptor would actually perform faster as a PATA, since it
> wouldn't have the Marvel chip and the associated extra conversion factor
> layer.

That would be an entirely naive assumption without any supporting evidence.
The conversion chip does NOT have to do much.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 5:35:14 AM

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

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:35:13 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
>news:3d818cf8da222efc844f090deb602c67@dizum.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:55:37 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
>> >would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.
>>
>> "Upon tilting the drive around its transverse axis, our attention is drawn
>> to the only chip located on the underside of the board. This is a Serial
>> ATA Bridge from Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to
>> make products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA."
>>
>> The implication is that the Marvel chip is a kludge, present because the
>> drive doesn't support "native" SATA,
>
>Yep, a 'kludge' that is the fastest ATA drive on the market.
>
>> like Seagate claims of their drives.
>> And along those lines (or lies), a native interface will be faster than a
>> design that has to pass the data through circuitry that converts that data
>> to the target interface.
>
>There is no reason to believe that such will provided significantly better
>performance.
>
>> So in keeping all of this in mind, one could
>> assume that the Raptor would actually perform faster as a PATA, since it
>> wouldn't have the Marvel chip and the associated extra conversion factor
>> layer.
>
>That would be an entirely naive assumption without any supporting evidence.
>The conversion chip does NOT have to do much.
>

Bzzzzt. Wrong Answer, Ron.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 10:32:41 AM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:58:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
>>>>
>>>>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if
>>>>you're not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of
>>>>something fast or quiet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
>>>
>>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>>
>>So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
>>the point you miss.
>>
>>> "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
>>> its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
>>> on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
>>> Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
>>> products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
>>>
>>> We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
>>> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
>>> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
>>> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
>>> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
>>> extra layer of conversions added on.
>>>
>>> Guess which one would be faster ?
>>
>>Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that
>>you have them.
>>
>>> PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
>>>
>>> Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;) 
>>
>>Actually it's called idiocy.
>
> You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.
>
> Poor even by your sorry standards.

I see. So you don't have any numbers to present to demonstrate that a drive
with a bridge chip is slower than one without, and you don't know where one
can get drive with a PATA interface that has the same performance as a
Raptor, so instead you resort to insults. Typical response of the
intellectually bankrupt. My only regret is that I wasted my time reading
your posts.

<plonk>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 10:33:22 AM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:12 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
>>> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
>>> extra layer of conversions added on.
>>>
>>> Guess which one would be faster ?
>>
>>A tie...get a clue.
>>
>
> Nonsense, you and Clarke are such fawning clowns.

Prove it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 12:03:48 PM

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

Just started postin today as a newbie troll I see.

<heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 5, 2004 12:03:49 PM

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

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:03:48 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>Just started postin today as a newbie troll I see.
>
><heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
>

You're the one who's causing all the stink, Ron.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 1:46:42 AM

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:cjtus303tc@news1.newsguy.com
> heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:12 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" rondashreaugh@att.net wrote:
> > > <heretic@sata_n.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
> > > > they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
> > > > extra layer of conversions added on.
> > > >
> > > > Guess which one would be faster ?
> > >
> > > A tie...get a clue.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense, you and Clarke are such fawning clowns.
>
> Prove it.

By answering you just did.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 1:46:56 AM

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:cjtus103tb@news1.newsguy.com
> heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:58:20 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if
> > > > > you're not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of
> > > > > something fast or quiet.
> > > >
> > > > Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
> > > >
> > > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
> > >
> > > So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed?
> > > That's the point you miss.
> > >
> > > > "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
> > > > its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
> > > > on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
> > > > Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
> > > > products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
> > > >
> > > > We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
> > > > Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
> > > > the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
> > > > follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
> > > > they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
> > > > extra layer of conversions added on.
> > > >
> > > > Guess which one would be faster ?
> > >
> > > Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that
> > > you have them.
> > >
> > > > PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes... that's why it's called heresy ;) 
> > >
> > > Actually it's called idiocy.
> >
> > You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.
> >
> > Poor even by your sorry standards.
>
> I see. So you don't have any numbers to present to demonstrate that a drive
> with a bridge chip is slower than one without, and you don't know where one
> can get drive with a PATA interface that has the same performance as a Raptor,
> so instead you resort to insults. Typical response of the intellectually bankrupt.

> My only regret is that I wasted my time reading your posts.

You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts seriously.

>
> <plonk>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 5:37:04 AM

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

Get back under the bridge folkert.

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 5:39:53 AM

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

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message

> > My only regret is that I wasted my time reading your posts.
>
> You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts
seriously.

And then what do you do? Bray at the moon over newsreaders...back under
bridge.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 11:53:25 AM

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

"Rod Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
>
>> > My only regret is that I wasted my time reading your posts.
>>
>> You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts
>seriously.
>
>And then what do you do? Bray at the moon over newsreaders...

It's not the newsreader's fault that idiots like you post loads of
unreadable, mangled-quote garbage to USENET, Rod^Hn.
It's the idiot's fault, for not fixing the dang thing, or for not
using a different tool.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 6, 2004 9:09:29 PM

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

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:J1I8d.494043$OB3.229435@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> > > My only regret is that I wasted my time reading your posts.
> >
> > You seem to do that a lot, feeding the Trolls by taking their posts seriously.
>
> And then what do you do? Bray at the moon over newsreaders...back under
> bridge.

Slow newsday, Ron?
How many heads per surface on a ST12450 again, Ron? 2?
Rotflol.
October 6, 2004 10:27:52 PM

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

>>The conversion chip does NOT have to do much.
>>
>
>Bzzzzt. Wrong Answer, Ron.

Most of the instruction on the SATA standart are very close to the
instructions of the ATA standard. So there isn't much to do.

Nick
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 14, 2004 3:29:05 PM

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

heretic@sata_n.com wrote in message news:<6tb2m091n7pd596083qupkq7t3lgp4rktj@4ax.com>...

> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
>
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05....
>
> "...We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."

I imagine (but can't prove) that the onboard cache is parallel. I also
imagine that there are other good reasons to have a parallel data path
in the drive electronics. Thus I'm not surprised that a proven
parallel-serial bridge chip is used.

It would be interesting to know if there is anything different on a
"native SATA" drive vs. an "apparent PATA-SATA kludge." What we don't
know is, how much of the PATA interface was left off then the SATA
bridge chip was tacked on this particular drive. It's educated
speculation, but speculation nonetheless that a PATA interface will
ever be available on this product. I counterspeculate that the reuse
of some of the PATA electronics represented good cost savings because
the STR bottleneck is upstream anyway. For a PATA version to be
marketed, the overall benefit would have to exceed the cost of
tooling. It could very well be that they make a higher margin on the
SATA drives, so they might be betting on pushing the market in that
direction by limiting the supply of the lower margin PATA (again, my
speculation only).

%mod%
!