Serial ATA

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Newt, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. Newt

    Newt Guest

    Newt, Jul 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Newt

    AD C Guest

    Newt wrote:

    > Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
    > http://www.serialata.org/
    >

    Thank you, I bookmarked the URL and well have a look tomorrow, when i am
    more awake. I want to know more about Serial ATA as my board supports them
    AD C, Jul 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Newt

    Baffie Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:13:45 +0100, "Newt" <> wrote:

    >Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
    >http://www.serialata.org/
    >
    >HTH
    >Newt
    >

    I must take a look at this website - there may well be an explanation
    on why such flimsy connectors were specified when it's pretty obvious
    how easy they can be broken.

    Please reply to newsgroup - it's not my address in the header!
    Baffie, Jul 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Newt

    Robert Baer Guest

    Newt wrote:
    >
    > Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
    > http://www.serialata.org/
    >
    > HTH
    > Newt


    I think the "fuss" (or hype) is a bit over-rated at best.
    For example, take a "ho-hum" parallel IDE data transfer rate of
    100Mbytes/sec, and make the false assumption that only data is
    transferred via the cable.
    Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
    Robert Baer, Jul 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Newt

    AD C Guest

    Baffie wrote:

    > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:13:45 +0100, "Newt" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
    >>http://www.serialata.org/
    >>
    >>HTH
    >>Newt
    >>

    >
    > I must take a look at this website - there may well be an explanation
    > on why such flimsy connectors were specified when it's pretty obvious
    > how easy they can be broken.


    they do look flimsy, I must admit, I looked at the cable that came with
    my abit board, I suppose most of the time they are pluged in and left,so
    being flimsy is not a problem.

    You may be able to help me here, one day soon, in the future, when I got
    some money :) , I am looking to buy a Serial ATA drive. I know that
    you need a different data cable, but I also heard you need a convertor
    for the power lead, is that true?

    The only thing that came with my mother board is a data cable and a EIDE
    convertor so I can one my normal har drive on the Serial if I want to.
    See no need to do that yet, unles I was suign raid or I had all my EIDE
    ports filled.
    AD C, Jul 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Newt

    AD C Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:

    > Newt wrote:
    >
    >>Anyone who would like to know more about SATA try here
    >>http://www.serialata.org/
    >>
    >>HTH
    >>Newt

    >
    >
    > I think the "fuss" (or hype) is a bit over-rated at best.
    > For example, take a "ho-hum" parallel IDE data transfer rate of
    > 100Mbytes/sec, and make the false assumption that only data is
    > transferred via the cable.
    > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????


    I will have a look at what you said when I am more awake and then try
    and understand it :)
    AD C, Jul 19, 2003
    #6
  7. Newt

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote in
    news::

    > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????


    See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
    DeMoN LaG, Jul 19, 2003
    #7
  8. Newt

    RussS Guest

    Consider todays serial ATA to be the equivalent as earlier ATA 33
    standards - 66 was an improvement and future SATA will be an improvement on
    current specs. Saying that my current setup with an ASUS P48SX board is
    much quicker and trouble free than my earlier version P4S333 with PATA
    drives - using the same RAM and processor.
    RussS, Jul 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Newt

    GB Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????

    >
    > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.


    Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
    bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
    comes out?

    Is this just hype-ware?
    GB, Jul 19, 2003
    #9
  10. Newt

    Thor Guest

    "GB" <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > > news::
    > >
    > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or

    more..
    > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????

    > >
    > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little

    future.
    > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.

    >
    > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
    > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
    > comes out?
    >
    > Is this just hype-ware?


    No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward compatible,
    just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward compatible
    throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over time
    will be in the BIOS just as before.
    Thor, Jul 19, 2003
    #10
  11. "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????

    >
    > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.


    Indeed...SATA 300 is due mid 2004, and SATA 600 is due sometime 2006.
    Richard Dower, Jul 19, 2003
    #11
  12. Newt

    Robert Baer Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????

    >
    > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.


    Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
    what i stated.
    Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
    times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
    times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
    If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
    then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
    (at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
    If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
    would be fairly fast.
    Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
    differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
    being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?
    Robert Baer, Jul 20, 2003
    #12
  13. Newt

    Tim Auton Guest

    Robert Baer <> wrote:
    >Thor wrote:
    >> "GB" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
    >> > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
    >> > comes out?
    >> >
    >> > Is this just hype-ware?

    >>
    >> No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward compatible,
    >> just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward compatible
    >> throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over time
    >> will be in the BIOS just as before.

    >
    > A single cable with data and control signals cannot be physically or
    >electronically "compatible" with a parallel cable having seperate data
    >and signal lines.
    > So anyone claiming direct "backwards compatibility" is a liar.


    Thor meant future S-ATA modes will be backwards compatible with the
    current S-ATA spec, not with PATA. In the same way as you can use an
    ATA66 drive with an ATA133 controller or a USB1.1 device with a USB2.0
    controller (or whatever they call USBx.x these days).


    Tim
    Tim Auton, Jul 20, 2003
    #13
  14. Newt

    Thor Guest

    "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thor wrote:
    > >
    > > "GB" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > >
    > > > "DeMoN LaG" <de_on-lag@co_cast.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:Xns93BD33B95D03AWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > > > > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > > > > news::
    > > > >
    > > > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or

    > > more..
    > > > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
    > > > >
    > > > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any).

    The
    > > > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little

    > > future.
    > > > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.
    > > >
    > > > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware

    is
    > > > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when

    it
    > > > comes out?
    > > >
    > > > Is this just hype-ware?

    > >
    > > No, the intention is that future S-ATA modes will be backward

    compatible,
    > > just as parallel ATA drives and controllers have been backward

    compatible
    > > throughout it's lifetime. The key limitations you will likely see over

    time
    > > will be in the BIOS just as before.

    >
    > A single cable with data and control signals cannot be physically or
    > electronically "compatible" with a parallel cable having seperate data
    > and signal lines.
    > So anyone claiming direct "backwards compatibility" is a liar.


    First, I wasn't talking about direct backward compatibility between P-ATA
    and S-ATA. I was referring to backward compatibility between different
    generations of S-ATA. This is what the poster I repsonded to was asking.
    whether S-ATA drives available now will work with the faster generations of
    S-ATA controllers that are brought out in the future. There was backward
    compatibility between different generations of P-ATA. S-ATA won't be any
    different in that regard, thus no need to avoid using S-ATA. However, as to
    the issue you mistakenly addressed, there are adapters available right now
    that allow P-ATA drives to interface with S-ATA controllers and ATA drives
    to interface with P-ATA controllers. No, it's not "direct" backward
    compatibility, but it's damn close. Close enough that the compatibitliy
    issues between the two standards are a moot point.
    Thor, Jul 20, 2003
    #14
  15. Newt

    V W Wall Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    >
    > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > >
    > > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > > news::
    > >
    > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????

    > >
    > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.

    >
    > Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
    > what i stated.
    > Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
    > times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
    > times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
    > If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
    > then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
    > (at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
    > If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
    > would be fairly fast.
    > Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
    > differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
    > being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?


    Thor explained the problems with increasing the data transfer rate with
    the present parallel ATA standard(s). Also, remember that the ultimate
    origin and destiny of the data is on the surface of a hard disk platter.
    This is, of itself, a "serial" data train.

    There is some work being done on "parallel" data recording. Multi layers
    in optical data media are being investigated, but using magnetic media,
    SATA looks like the best near-term solution.

    Incidently, without some major change in optical recording, the data density
    is limited by the wavelength of the recording "light". Magnetic recording
    has no such theoretical limitation.

    Virg Wall

    --
    Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
    Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
    V W Wall, Jul 20, 2003
    #15
  16. Newt

    AD C Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:


    > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.


    That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
    only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
    you need 4 SATA ports.

    I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
    prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
    the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
    AD C, Jul 20, 2003
    #16
  17. Newt

    AD C Guest

    GB wrote:


    > Surely, then, the message is to avoid SATA for now. Whatever hardware is
    > bought now will presumably not work with the new faster standard when it
    > comes out?
    >
    > Is this just hype-ware?
    >
    >

    It will be beack ward compatible, just like PATA and usb is now.
    AD C, Jul 20, 2003
    #17
  18. Newt

    Thor Guest

    "AD C" <> wrote in message
    news:bfekb0$b5q$...
    > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >
    >
    > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little

    future.
    > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.

    >
    > That is true, but there is one problem with SATA and that is you can
    > only put one drive on each port, so to put four drive into a computer,
    > you need 4 SATA ports.


    True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
    isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
    connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to
    route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also, you
    don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors can't
    properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own cable.
    Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.

    >
    > I will not doubt buy a SATA drive when I get a larger hard drive, the
    > prices are coming down already and as my board supports them, it leves
    > the PATAs free for CDwriter and other slow products.
    >
    Thor, Jul 20, 2003
    #18
  19. Newt

    Robert Baer Guest

    V W Wall wrote:
    >
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    > >
    > > DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Robert Baer <> wrote in
    > > > news::
    > > >
    > > > > Convert it to raw serial data, without any added control bits =
    > > > > 800Mbits/sec or almost 1Ghz data rate.
    > > > > Then add in the control functions, which translates to 1Ghz or more..
    > > > > And the claim it is faster than parallel IDE????????????????????
    > > >
    > > > See, the thing is right now SATA isn't really much faster (if any). The
    > > > difference is that PATA is at the end of it's road, and has little future.
    > > > SATA /can/ go faster when needed.

    > >
    > > Only with rise/fall times in the 100 picosecond region on the basis of
    > > what i stated.
    > > Assuming one used 1Ghz signalling rate with 100 picosecond rise/fall
    > > times, it is obvious that a parallel (byte-wide) protocol is *eight
    > > times* faster than a serial (bit-wide) protocol.
    > > If one used a fast signalling method like that to get greater speed,
    > > then it is stupid to slow down the data transfer by a factor of eight
    > > (at minimum), thereby wasting that greater speed.
    > > If one thinks that 100Mbyte/sec is slow, certainly 1,000Mbytes/sec
    > > would be fairly fast.
    > > Obviously, the cable as-is cannot easily support such a data ratem so
    > > differnt vabling would be in order - perhaps similar to whatever is
    > > being contemplated for SATA (have not looked) ?

    >
    > Thor explained the problems with increasing the data transfer rate with
    > the present parallel ATA standard(s). Also, remember that the ultimate
    > origin and destiny of the data is on the surface of a hard disk platter.
    > This is, of itself, a "serial" data train.
    >
    > There is some work being done on "parallel" data recording. Multi layers
    > in optical data media are being investigated, but using magnetic media,
    > SATA looks like the best near-term solution.
    >
    > Incidently, without some major change in optical recording, the data density
    > is limited by the wavelength of the recording "light". Magnetic recording
    > has no such theoretical limitation.
    >
    > Virg Wall
    >
    > --
    > Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
    > Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.


    Ahhhh, you mentioned something i thought of in the mid 1980s..namely
    that since all platters have heads, then *parallel* output is so easy
    and obvious that it is a wonder how stupid HD makers have been (and for
    so long).
    Hell, with 8 platters (16 heads) and a different cable configuration,
    true 16-bit computing could have been achieved at the outset of the
    80386!
    That was roughly the time that both IDE and SCSI first came out,
    replacing the older MFM multi-cable systems; a lot of new schemes and
    "space" for a (then) kick-ass truly parallel system.
    Oh, you want to *double* the file access speed (on open and close,
    anyway)?
    Just put the FAT in the middle of the disk instead of having it at the
    edge!
    Not my idea; Tandy did that on 8 inch floppies, model 80 if i remember
    correctly.
    Robert Baer, Jul 21, 2003
    #19
  20. Newt

    Thor Guest

    "AD C" <> wrote in message
    news:bfgf6g$coj$...
    > Thor wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > True, but putting 4 S-ATA ports on the motherboard, or a controller card
    > > isn't a problem. They are very small in comparison to parallel ATA
    > > connections. Even with 4 S-ATA cables in the box, it is still easier to

    >
    > True, my old board got 2 PATA and two PATa raid and they take up a fair
    > bit of space on the board, my new Abit, got two PAta and two S-ATA and
    > it is difficult to find the S-ATA on the board, they are so small.
    >
    >
    > > route and less obstructive than having 2 big fat ribbon cables. Also,

    you
    > > don't have to worry about having ribbon cables where the connectors

    can't
    > > properly reach both drives at the same time. Each drive gets it's own

    cable.
    >
    > I hate that, I had a full size towercase and my old board had the
    > connection low down on the motherboard, it was a pain to connect the CD
    > writer and dvd drive. The smaller cables are nice, I must admit.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Also no master/slave or CS jumpering to worry about. Just plug and go.

    >
    > That is also nice as well.
    >
    > The only problem is that for a while P-ATA will still need to be on the
    > board due to the fact there ar so many products that use them. CDrom,
    > DVD rom,DVD writer,Cd writer, Zip drives and the LS drive. plus others.
    >
    >
    > How do Sata drives get their power, do they use the normal molex

    connector?

    No. They use a new style small connector adjacent to the S-ATA Data
    connector. However, current S-ATA drives are often coming with the old-style
    molex for compatibility reasons. There are also adapters available for older
    power supplies. The new ATX spec coming out will have the new S-ATA power
    connector, so new power supplies should start showing up with it.
    Thor, Jul 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Faustino Dina
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,308
    Hansang Bae
    Aug 18, 2004
  2. Scooter
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    7,145
    krycheq
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. EIDE vs. Serial ATA drives

    , Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,383
  4. Robert11
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    568
  5. GT

    350d serial number - what serial number?!?

    GT, Apr 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    573
    eatmorepies
    Apr 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page