Real-world comparisons between SATA 150 and SATA 300

[Guest]

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

Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
speed between the two?

Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com...
> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?


Rephrase your question. I suspect you realize how naive it is on the
surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to
do with the speed of a HD itself.

> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?


There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com...
> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>

 

[Guest]

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

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?

It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
move data from the buffer to memory. It is no doubt possible to contrive a
usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
than an SATA I drive, but in the real world performance is limited by the
number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of
SATA I.

The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
even there the difference is second-order.

The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
it is "almost as fast as SCSI".

> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com...
> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > speed between the two?
>
> Rephrase your question.

I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
to facetious comments.


> I suspect you realize how naive it is on the
> surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
> bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to
> do with the speed of a HD itself.
>
> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>
> There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
> find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
> to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.


I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive
being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300
controller.

I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?

You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,
so please don't bother commenting.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42C9039F.24E42051@hotmail.com...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com...
>> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
>> > speed between the two?
>>
>> Rephrase your question.
>
> I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
> to facetious comments.
>
>
>> I suspect you realize how naive it is on the
>> surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
>> bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much
>> to
>> do with the speed of a HD itself.
>>
>> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
>> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>>
>> There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted.
>> You'll
>> find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when
>> connected
>> to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
>
>
> I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive
> being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300
> controller.


It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what
demonstrated your naivety, Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather
close to the same performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300
controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't
relevant. Particular HD models are relevant.

> I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?
>
> You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,
> so please don't bother commenting.

Obviously the opposite is true. Check out some benchmarks.

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Reaugh wrote:
>

<snip>

> Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same
> performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300
> controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't
> relevant. Particular HD models are relevant.


Why not just say this in the first place? Simple (that figures),
succinct and to the point.

Grief - talk about walking around in circles.

Besides, from your behaviour I wouldn't believe you if you told me the
earth was approximately round.

I'm hardly likely to have much faith in your ability to differentiate
between SATA I and II.

Thanks anyway - it must have been an effort for you.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

Business slow, is it, Duncan?

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com
> Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> speed between the two?
>
> Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>
>
> Odie

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:368ye.385811$cg1.255517@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Odie Ferrous" odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C9039F.24E42051@hotmail.com...
> > Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > > "Odie Ferrous" odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com...
> > > > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > > > speed between the two?
> > >
> > > Rephrase your question.
> >
> > I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
> > to facetious comments.

But wouldn't 'know' you as we know you, Duncan.
What you know and what you don't know.
Why that business signature is in the bottom of your post, for instance.

> >
> >
> > > I suspect you realize how naive it is on the surface. Are you just trolling?

You know he does.

> > > Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
> > > bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much
> > > to do with the speed of a HD itself.
> > >
> > > > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > > > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
> > >
> > > There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
> > > find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
> > > to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
> >
> >
> > I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive being
> > on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300 controller.
>
> It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what
> demonstrated your naivety,

So what is it, he's trolling or he's naive.

> Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same
> performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300 controller
> in single user workstation usage.

Currently.
And it doesn't make a bloody difference whether it is single user workstation
or server usage. That is decided by other SATA-2 features.

> SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't relevant.

It should be.

> Particular HD models are relevant.

It shouldn't be. Not yet.

>
> > I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?

You mean indecision, don't you?

> >
> > You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,

One doesn't need to. It's no different to IDE and SCSI, even when
SATA is a point to point interface and IDE and SCSI are not.
No current drive can exhaust 100MB/s useable bandwidth.

> > so please don't bother commenting.
>
> Obviously the opposite is true. Check out some benchmarks.

 

[Guest]

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

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> Business slow, is it, Duncan?
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128@hotmail.com
> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > speed between the two?
> >
> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
> >
> >
> > Odie

Hi, Folkert.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?

Stupid, for asking questions?

Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
symptoms.

I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
group - but obviously not.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

 

[Guest]

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

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C96232.DF26FAC2@hotmail.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> >
> > Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?
>
> Stupid, for asking questions?
>
> Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
> symptoms.
>
> I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
> group - but obviously not.
>
The professionals are fed up with clueless newbies who ask stupid questions.

The "faster interface" issue comes up every month.
How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?

 

[Guest]

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

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dabqu604db@enews3.newsguy.com...

> How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?

NO, Google groups shows that you've been so doing much longer than odious
odoriferous HD butcher.

 

[Guest]

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message news:dabh5g32cpr@news2.newsguy.com
> Odie Ferrous wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > speed between the two?
> >
> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
>
> It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
> II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
> move data from the buffer to memory.

Not if that Serial ATA II drive has a standard 1.5Gb/s interface.
Note that he subtitle to Serial ATA II is "Extensions to Serial ATA 1.0"

> It is no doubt possible to contrive a
> usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
> than an SATA I drive,

Provided that it incorporates *that* particular new 'extension' of Serial ATA II,
the new higher interface speed.

> but in the real world performance is limited by the
> number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
> past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of SATA I.

And you really think Duncan didn't know that?

>
> The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
> multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
> even there the difference is second-order.
>
> The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
> it is "almost as fast as SCSI".

Oh? How is that?

>
> > Odie

 

[Luuk]

There is no such thing as SATA I and SATA II
The name SATA II is commonly mistaken for a "faster drive" while all it was, was the workgroup who were developing and improving SATA drives. There is a difference in the broadband sort-a-speak of 150 GB/s, 300 GB/s and 600 GB/s hard drives . This however is not called SATA I, II or III. They are all just faster or "slower" editions of SATA drives.

Oh and btw the difference between SATA "I" and SATA "II" not noticeable on a regular desktop computer. There is no way you can even reach the 150GB/s mark of even an early edition of a SATA drive by yourself, not even when used in a home server.

Good luck