Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Installing a SAS Backplane, or using a SATA to SAS Adapter?

Last response: in Components
Share
February 27, 2010 4:48:46 AM

Hello,
I have a Toshiba Satellite A205-S5825, and I'm currently working on getting some new upgrades put in (Whatever upgrades possible) and I'm currently at a roadblock. I currently have the standard 5400RPM SATA 1.5Gb/s HD and I'm wanting to upgrade to a 10K SAS 6.0Gb/s FF 2.5". I know it's the right form factor I'm just concerned that the SAS drive will not be compatible with my SATA backplane and I'm wondering how difficult it is to swap out a SATA backplane for a SAS. I'm pretty sure I found the right part at the following website:

http://www.computercablesource.com/sas-adapter-4200-int...

My only concern is that I really should consult someone who knows about this before I run off messing with this and spending money left and right when it wont even work. I am very proficient with hardware in notebooks and taking them apart and doing work on them, they bust so easily and we have 8 in the house so I'm constantly working with them, and I'm very good at it. I just want to know before I go and do anything drastic if it is possible and I'd like to speak with someone who has done it before so I'm not completely lost.

Thanks for the help guys!!!
February 27, 2010 6:12:52 AM

You cant arse yourself to help me out? No one on the internet has been able to help me! The entire internets!
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 9:04:12 AM

1. Why would you want a SAS drive on a laptop?

2. Because it's a laptop any kind of adapter is unlikely to fit.
m
0
l
February 27, 2010 11:00:13 AM

Quote:
I know it's the right form factor I'm just concerned that the SAS drive will not be compatible with my SATA backplane and I'm wondering how difficult it is to swap out a SATA backplane for a SAS.
You'd also need to swap the SATA controller for a SAS controller and that requires a motherboard redesign. A SAS controller can support both SATA and SAS drives. Installing a SSD drive would be far more cost effective.
m
0
l
!