/ Sign-up
Your question

Sata 3

  • Hard Drives
  • SATA
  • NAS / RAID
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
June 21, 2010 12:09:52 PM

my new mobo supports sata 3 and i want to replace my raid 0 array.

i have four 750GB hard drives, with all four in RAID 0. They are all SATA 1 drives, i want to get four replacement sata 3 drives, how much of a performance increse should I expect? and also could anyone reccomend a 750GB sata 3 drive? (preferably low cost as I want to do the transfer as cheaply as possible) thanks in advance.

More about : sata

a b G Storage
June 21, 2010 1:01:46 PM

Look at the maximum throughput of each drive. It's probably not much more than sata 1 speeds, so probably even a sata 2 drive would only give you a modest increase - as far as the bandwidth of the channel is concerned. Newer drives have internal improvements that help - higher bit density, primarily.

Of course, if you go with SSD, you can get a big speed boost, but that much storage would cost an arm & a leg.
June 21, 2010 1:15:26 PM

and my mistake, i meant 500 GB for each drive.
Related resources
June 21, 2010 1:16:23 PM

yeah but im looking to go to sata 3. not sata 2, sata 1 and two are the same infrastructure aren't they? as for the drives themselves i was looking at those with 32mb of cache and 7200 rpm's. mabye western digital cavair black SATA 3G type?
a b G Storage
June 21, 2010 5:00:04 PM

not sure what you mean by "same infrastructure" - sata 1,2,3 all use the same connectors, cabling, and are similar except for bus speed/bandwidth (1.5, 3.0, and 6.0Mb/s max).

See this review of the wd black 2tb drives,2430-7...
note that the MAX tested throughput is about 140MB (a little over 1Gb) per second. So basically sata 3 is good for headroom for future devices, including SSD, but sata 2 easily handles the current hard drives of today.

The improvement will come from the fact that today's drives are faster, not as much from the different interface. If you have to pay a lot more for a sata 3 drive, it's probably not worth it vs. sata 2, but it certainly isn't bad otherwise.
a b G Storage
June 21, 2010 7:41:13 PM

Those drives are SATA 3Gig (Generation 2), not SATA 6Gig (Generation 3).
I doubt anyone made a SATA 1.5 (Generation 1) 750Gig Drive, to the best of my knowledge all 750Gig's were SATA 3Gig (Generation 2).
If your current drives are Greens then yes they will be slow, and the 500Gig's will be faster, but that has NOTHING to do with the interface.
June 21, 2010 7:44:02 PM

can u reccomend me a sata 6gig? the third gen drives? preferably in 500GB.
June 21, 2010 8:00:47 PM

so for performance, two of those in raid 0 OR four of the 500GB sata 2nd gen in raid 0?
a c 464 G Storage
June 21, 2010 8:16:38 PM

You're not getting the message. The limit on performance of mechanical hard drives (the ones that spin disks past heads that move on arms over the surfaces) is in the mechanics of the drive internals - rotational speed, head movement speed, etc. Those limits mean that NO current drive of that type can even get up to the data transfer maximum burst rate of 3.0 Gb/s that SATA II drives have already. And NOBODY expects ANY mechanical drive system to get faster that 3.0 Gb/s in any near year. The only drive systems that actually CAN beat SATA 3.0 Gb/s and take advantage of the newest SATA 6.0 Gb/s are the SSD units - solid State Drives that have NO moving parts. They are VERY fast but, for the same data capacity, they are MUCH more expensive than mechanical drives.

Having a mobo that provides SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers and ports (aka SATA III, but we're not supposed to use that term) is good for the future as more SSD units become available at attractive prices. And they are useful now for ability to use some SSD units for particular applications. But when you go to choosing mechanical HDD units to plug in, you will get NO performance benefit at all from SATA 6.0 Gb/s over SATA 3.0 Gb/s. So it is not worth paying extra for that feature.

Now, I saw one post here recently where it WAS worth it, but for another reason entirely. In that case the poster had a choice of a SATA 3.0 Gb/s HDD with a 32 MB cache on board, versus a SATA 6.0 Gb/s unit of the same size and speed, but with a 64 MB cache. The price difference was $10. For that $ difference the cache size is worth it for its small performance boost.
June 21, 2010 8:20:25 PM

so the two 1tb hard drives are better? (in a raid 0 set up I mean)
a c 464 G Storage
June 22, 2010 12:35:12 AM

A pair of WD Black 1 TB units at $95 each in RAID0 is simpler and cheaper than a set of four WD Black 500 GB units at $60 each in RAID arrays. As Mr. Linux says, the Tiger website you showed uses the term "SATA 3G" to mean SATA 3.0 Gb/s, which many have called "SATA II". Those are the drive types I recommend. They are not the "3rd generation" SATA 6.0 Gb/s drives.