Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Good news for Serial ATA [smile]

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 23, 2002 1:17:17 PM

Check out <A HREF="http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/company/pressrelease.h..." target="_new">Adaptec</A> and see what's brewing!

<font color=red>People and hard drives are like bandwagon fans and sports!</font color=red>
February 23, 2002 2:05:07 PM

Sounds good!

Not for an ATX mobo though.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
February 24, 2002 1:45:16 AM

Makes you wonder why Fiber Channel never became popular, it's a similar concept in some ways.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Related resources
February 24, 2002 9:33:49 AM

sorry, im not agreed.
i think <i>Serial ATA</i> will replace ATA & we have just to hope the first hds with will work fine because generally first technology concept involves some beginning losses.

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
February 24, 2002 11:55:05 AM

But would you (as a manufacturer) want to take the losses from such repercussions?

Its easier to make money with a 'working' solution, than trying to market a technology that will have problems from the off.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
February 24, 2002 12:23:11 PM

ok, just a little exemple:

AIW 8500 DV haven't good drivers when it comes for sale.
as soon as some people said this card is "<i>crap</i>".
few time after, ATI improves their drivers & now its a great card.

but is ATI makes money with it ?
i sure it did.

Intel had a lot products losses (RDRAM, ...).
but dont they make some money with ?

Microsoft had also OS softwares losses eg 98SE (=98+few add-ons which could download from internet for free), WIN2000 (=Windows NT with few add-ons).
but dont they make some money with ?

at last that i try to say for <i>Serial ATA</i> is:
the principe seems to me good & as for ATA which has been improved year/month after year/month i think this would be the same case with the <i>Serial ATA</i>.



if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
February 24, 2002 2:39:59 PM

Well lets look at your examples.

ATI drivers: All gfx card manufacturers realise they can do better later, as technology is always mving forward. Add to that, the fact that system specs get better, so they release drivers to suit.

Intel: Well then. I don't see many people recommending the P4 as a brilliant product. A decent product perhaps, but not above the XP or even some PIIIs. They have lost an awful lot of credibility due to RAMBUS.

MS: What other OS were you going to use?

That all said and done, HDDs are very here today and gone tomorrow anyway. Look at the recent posts made by some on the quality of the 60GXPs. 6 months ago, they were the best!

Now people are falling over each other to moan about them. HDDs aren't the sort of thing to make cock ups with. IBM were lucky. They released the 60GXP which saved them from the 75GXP moans.

Now the 120GXP is out, there's a moan a day about the 60GXP.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
February 24, 2002 3:41:32 PM

Quote:
But would you (as a manufacturer) want to take the losses from such repercussions?

manufacturers as ATI, nVidia, Microsoft sold/sell/will sell nevertheless their first "not (very) well implemented" products & they find/found/will find always people to buy them.

<i>note: this is also because of this that they can also amortize their research costs & improve their products.</i>

do you think that the AIW 8500 (DV) wasnt bought when it came on the market ?
the unique "little" limitation at this time was just the price of the gc.


Quote:
ATI drivers: All gfx card manufacturers realise they can do better later, as technology is always mving forward. Add to that, the fact that system specs get better, so they release drivers to suit

agreed at all.

Quote:
Intel: Well then. I don't see many people recommending the P4 as a brilliant product. A decent product perhaps, but not above the XP or even some PIIIs. They have lost an awful lot of credibility due to RAMBUS.

it exists yet many people & many enterprises who think it exists just one well cpu & its Intel cpu (because they dont care about price &/or they dont understand nothing about informatics & cpus &/or their enterprise is too "little" to have/pay some engineer advices to teach/help us to choice).
i see yet this case very often, unfortunately.

Quote:
MS: What other OS were you going to use?

Unix SCO, Unix System V, Linux, AS400, & a bit of Mac OS.
but why this question ?

Quote:
That all said and done, HDDs are very here today and gone tomorrow anyway. Look at the recent posts made by some on the quality of the 60GXPs. 6 months ago, they were the best!

Now people are falling over each other to moan about them. HDDs aren't the sort of thing to make cock ups with. IBM were lucky. They released the 60GXP which saved them from the 75GXP moans.

yes. but i dont talk about hds themself but their interface
(ATA vs Serial ATA).


if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
February 24, 2002 5:26:24 PM

But why introduce Serial ATA when we already have fiber channel? Why introduce USB 2.0 when we already have fire wire? Why introduce Zip when we already have LS120?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 24, 2002 5:54:10 PM

I think you are on to something...if we keep spending the money the manufacturer will continue taking baby-steps in advancement technology and charging premium prices. Sounds like the law of supply and demand, with a play on our <i>(greed)</i> I mean need for speed and power. Thats marketings job...and man! are they good!

<b><font color=red>Cast your vote with your $,</b></font color=red> <b><font color=blue>shed your pride with your opinion.</b></font color=blue>
February 24, 2002 6:14:05 PM

Yes, they are good, now I'll need 4 removable media drives and 6 drive intrafaces simply to retrieve data from broken systems! At least SCSI is backwards compatable!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 24, 2002 8:22:36 PM

Oh! I have been a SCSI man so long that I forgot about the limitations of IDE/ATA. When I need a hardware upgrade with SCSI, I just set the new device's ID#, add it to the chain, and let it rip.

So, maybe thats why marketing loves the IDE & ATA technology, because they can get more bang for their bucks.

SCSI is already too expensive so they can afford to nickle-dime IDE/ATA in an effort to break the 7200 rpm barrier. Wouldn't it be sweet to have an IDE/ATA 10k/15k rpm HDD. Oh-no! then SCSI would have to go faster and increase the cost to continue to dangle the carrot at IDE/ATA...and the band played on...$$$

<b><font color=red>Cast your vote with your $,</b></font color=red> <b><font color=blue>shed your pride with your opinion.</b></font color=blue>
February 24, 2002 8:50:08 PM

Quote:
But why introduce Serial ATA when we already have fiber channel?

Never seen a fibre channel cd-rom, DVD, burner, etc. Ideally the concept is very simular.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
February 24, 2002 9:04:26 PM

You never saw them because the man in charge thought it would be more profitable to offer a NEW interface.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 24, 2002 9:11:14 PM

Well I am not saying it isn't possible ( cdroms, etc) but Fibre channel is more of a storage interface implemented over a networking scheme. Serial ATA would be more of a catch all I believe that could integrate these devices better. Without any concrete hardware based on serial ata it is hard to compare. Most likely Cost is a factor.

Below is a few quotes from storage review:
Fibre:
You probably know that parallel SCSI is a high-end hard disk interface that is an alternative to the ubiquitous IDE/ATA. However, you may not realize that regular SCSI itself has a "big brother" of sorts. This interface is called Fibre Channel. The name comes from the fact that it was originally designed to operate over fiber-optic physical channels; copper wiring is now also supported. (The correct spelling is also "Fibre", not "Fiber"; this reflects the standard's European origins.) Like IEEE-1394, Fibre Channel is actually defined as part of the SCSI-3 family of standards, so it really is sort of a "sibling" to conventional SCSI. Sort of.

Like regular SCSI, Fibre Channel is a collection of protocols and options, and it would take some time for me to explain them all in detail, which I'm not going to do at present. The current implementation that is in use is a subset of Fibre Channel called Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop or FC-AL. FC-AL allows many servers and storage devices to be connected into what is essentially a "storage network". This configuration offers flexibility, performance and reliability advantages to high-end systems.

Despite being a serial interface, FC-AL allows for throughput of up to 4 Gbits/s, with future versions likely to increase this. One of the primary benefits of Fibre Channel is that when using fiber optic connections, devices can be separated by up to 10 kilometers--yes, 10,000 meters. Even with copper connections, 30 meters is the limit, which is pretty good compared to other interfaces.

So if Fibre Channel is so great, why isn't it used by PCs? The main reasons are cost, and the lack of necessity. FC-AL is currently used almost exclusively on servers--and groups of servers working together. It's a high-end interface that you aren't likely to run into in your personal system, at least for now. I did want to mention it, however, so you know it is out there.

Serial ATA:

The current IDE/ATA standard is a parallel interface; this means that multiple bits of data are transmitted at one time. In the case of ATA, 16 bits are moved across the interface simultaneously during each transfer. The advantage of a parallel interface is that it allows for high throughput; the problem with it is that as the frequency of the interface is increased, signaling problems and interference between signals become common. To combat this, techniques such as CRC and special 80-conductor cables are used in higher-speed transfer modes such as Ultra DMA. These are really "kludges" that are used to work around problems with the interface as it moves to higher speeds. A different approach, however, is to abandon the parallel concept in favor of a serial interface, where only one bit is transferred at a time. This is what the Serial ATA proposal is all about: creating a serial version of ATA for attaching IDE/ATA hard disks.

Obviously, in going from 16 bits to 1 bit, the speed of the interface must be increased by a factor of 16 just to "break even". The idea is that the simplicity of the serial interface will enable much higher speeds than would be possible from a parallel implementation, because the signaling problems are largely eliminated. In fact, this is the same reasoning that led to the creation of other high-speed serial interfaces, such as IEEE-1394. Serial ATA is still in development at the time that I write this page, but indications are that it will support maximum throughput of somewhere between 150 and 300 MB/s.

As enticing as the higher speed of the interface is its promise of improvements to some of the well-known (and well-hated) weaknesses of IDE/ATA. Since Serial ATA is a point-to-point serial protocol, each device communicates directly with the host system over a flexible, thin cable that can be made a reasonable length. This means no more master/slave jumpering hassles, elimination of the difficult-to-deal-with ribbon cables, and more flexibility in the placement of devices within the PC. It's also possible that hot-swapping will be supported when Serial ATA is implemented, which would be a welcome feature as far as I am concerned!

We'll have to see what happens regarding Serial ATA. I am a little skeptical about both its likelihood of being successfully implemented, and in fact with whether it is even needed. Proponents of serial hard disk interfaces have been saying "the end is nigh" regarding parallel interfaces for many years; I remember hearing about the "end of the road" when parallel IDE/ATA was at 16.6 MB/s, and parallel SCSI was at 40 MB/s, but these interfaces continue to get faster and faster. However, if they can really make Serial ATA work, especially at such high speeds, it may be a welcome improvement on what has really become a rather outdated design.




It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
February 24, 2002 9:11:17 PM

SCSI controllers are more efficient than IDE controllers becaue they use their own processor! But the real advantage is being able to operate 45 devices from one IRQ! SCSI would be inexpensive if it were the common standard in desktops, somebody should have shot the guy that introduced IDE, and then used SCSI in the desktop to begin with. Then we'd all be using cheap Ultra 160 7200RPM drives right now, which would cost around $100 new, and wishing we had the money to upgrade to Ultra 320. And the middling sort like me would be using 2 year old refurbished 10,000RPM Ultra 80 drives and trying to explain why our systems performed better. And USB scanners would be almost non-existant.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 24, 2002 9:58:45 PM

That's so nice. So like I was saying, similar concepts, but Fibre Channel is SCSI based. It could have been implemented just as easily, and the standard already exist.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 24, 2002 11:10:20 PM

Oh, god just when things were getting complicated.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 24, 2002 11:14:55 PM

I heard IBM (and maybe seagate, not sure) are going to only use serial ATA in their new pixie dust hard drives for desktops.
February 24, 2002 11:20:36 PM

Well the article doesn't give much detail, but it hints at what you are asking. It would seem that there is a large contigent pushing for something simular to wjat you were asking, kind of a fibre channel for the desktop.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
February 24, 2002 11:28:40 PM

Quote:
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MS: What other OS were you going to use?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unix SCO, Unix System V, Linux, AS400, & a bit of Mac OS.
but why this question ?



Yah.... but Linux doesn't have a lot of good software. There are two main os' unix (mac, linux, and etc.) and windows (9x and nt). Sure unix is superior to it, but it lacks the software that windows has. Sure i would switch my main operating system in my desktop to linux if they had the correct sofware, but that's <b>if</b> they have it. Currently, windows is incredibly insecure and dissapointing, but the only other choices are having a lack of software, which is the case in linux. Windows sucks, but it's your best choice depending on what you do. I like to do some 3d art and playing games, stuff you can't do on linux. Sure you have that open source art program in linux, gsomething..., but it lacks my requirements. The only thing i use linux for now is for PHP development.
February 24, 2002 11:34:22 PM

I am awe-struck by by that link! :eek:  3GIO, bring me the smiling-salt. If they pull that off I wonder what will be the cost. I will be following this movement to see how it will change everything about PC's.

<b><font color=red>Cast your vote with your $,</b></font color=red> <b><font color=blue>shed your pride with your opinion.</b></font color=blue>
February 25, 2002 12:38:20 AM

SSA - Serial Storage Architecture

Serial Storage Architecture, along with its FC-AL Fibre Channel alterative, that offer huge bandwith networking designs that operate within an ethernet network.
shared discs in SSA or FC-AL system can be operated over networks as fast as hds on a local comp.
furthermore the connecting cables are "thin" relative to traditional SCSI connection cables.
while UW SCSI has a 40Mb max bandwith, SSA offers 80 Mb & FC-AL goes up to 100Mb.
SSA is fully duplex with 2 cables to devices.
one advantage of SSA is that if a connected device fails, the entire loop does not fail since SSA does not require a hub.
in the futur, maybe SSA systems & FC-AL will replace SCSI systems.


if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
February 25, 2002 2:44:37 AM

Yes, but then mentions a type of architecture that would allow Serial ATA devices to be compatable SCSI, or something like that. What happens whenever someone attempts to merge two technolgies together is that a new technology emerges, which in spite of good intent becomes incompatable with everything else.

A good example of this in the mechanical world is the bicycle tire. In the U.S. there were three sizes for adult bicycle rims, 26" narrow (for 26x1+1/8" tires), 26" wide (for 26x1.75 through 26-2.125" tires), and 27". There were also the odd sized Schwinn 26" tires that were based on a british standard that even the British didn't use. And in some European contries, a 28" tire was sometimes used. All these sizes were based on theoretical TIRE diameter, the rims were actually smaller.

Well, somebody decided that all these imperial sizes were too much to live with, so they came out with the 700C size. Supposedly, all manufacturers would develope their tires and frames around this new standard, and all the rest would die out. Well, it never caught on in off-road bikes, but was used on many racing bikes and "Cross-Bikes". So all it did was add a new standard to already existing standards. Wal-mart for example sells a Mongoose brand cross-bike with 700C tires. Unfortunately they do NOT sell tires or tubes in that size, since Most bikes use other sizes!

Now why they call them 700C, instead of 70cm or 700mm, I don't know. Maybe you could also explain why the French language council mandates that all new products receive a french name, for example a computer is called an "ordinator", by LAW, Chinese restuarants are required to use the word "chinois" (pronounced "shin-wah") in their adds, BY LAW, "Swedish" is pronounced "Svedish" in Sweden (the "w" is pronounced "v" so that is understandable), but in French it's suédois, etc. Or why Taoism is not spelled "Dowism", when the letters are clearly in European script?

You see, it's in society's nature to make things as complicated as possible, and the Electronics industry finds this to be very profitable.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 25, 2002 12:18:08 PM

Quote:
MS: What other OS were you going to use?

why for now this question ?
where are you trying to bring me on ?


if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
February 25, 2002 1:06:54 PM

1. i just reply to an asking related to OS & MONEY. thats all.
why do you suppose im trying to prove something on OS ?
but now, im going to try to give some precisions.

<b>UNIX</b>
2. Unix is the best secure system which hasn't never made.
proccesses never crashed because of an other.
files security
users security
processes security
threads security
memory security
xtitasking security
<i>note: of course hacking is always possible</i>
3. you can install on Unix the X-windows interface which lets you seem its Windows & not Unix.
4. you have many drivers for unix almost as for windows
5. its a very robust system & has around 50 years experience
6. Unix isnt conceived for common users who have ideas as to play games or play multimedia. its rather an Enterprise Professional Operating System for huge applications.
7. Linux was created by students who are based themself on Unix to write the Linux sources.
8. yes, Unix doesnt has many <i>common</i> softs but it was not created for.
<b>LINUX</b>
9. but Linux was created for & now more & more softs exist for Linux. be yet patient a little for.
10. yes Linux supports Apache & PHP & its the most easily way to implement a Web Server.


if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.
!