A puzzle about S-ATA --- P-ATA

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Bad Disciple, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Bad Disciple

    Bad Disciple Guest

    Hi everyone,

    I have a decent computer, Intel P4, 2.4Gh, ASUS P4B 533(-E) mother,
    1.5GB RAM and 2 Hard Discs in a RAID0 (plus another Hard disc
    for saving). I built it in January 2003.

    As I start thinking of replacing it with a newer machine,
    my question is: Should I consider buying SerialATA Hard discs
    as they are not performing much more than good PATA ones?
    In fact, I've read much of what's written about SerialATA drives.
    I know all the advantages about longer thin cables, temperature etc.

    What puzzles me is this: Now it seems we come to the edge between
    the dead-end era for PATA and the start-era for SerialATA. If right now
    I need to build my new machine, I must make a choice. And...
    it seems not worthy to get PATA anymore, but in SerialATA
    150Mb/s not a great faster deal now, 300Mb/s are still new, and 600Mb/s
    is in the future. If I buy SerialATA 150Mb/s now, it's not evident that
    I should switch to SerialATA 300Mb/s or 600Mb/s later... And how many
    mothers support SerialATA 150-300...Mb/s ? A puzzle, isn't it?

    Thanks for any feedback,

    Bad Disciple
    "O n e t h i n g I k n o w i s t h a t I k n o w n o t h i n g"
    Bad Disciple, Jul 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bad Disciple

    Paul Guest

    One objective of the standards, is to support backward compatibility.
    Which means when SATA 600 comes out, it will be expected to work with
    300 and 150 disks as well. Any of them is good enough for desktop use.

    Note that, one of the things you can du with SATA, is "port multiplexing".
    One SATA cable can support many disks, via a port multiplier box. This
    product is already available, with a fanout of five. When SATA 600 becomes
    available, the fanout can be expanded further. So the speed gain is not
    necessarily only to improve single storage device operation, but may also
    be used to build better port multiplexers.


    As for how the media rate will become faster, there is this article.
    Some day, disks will go faster.

    From July 2, 2007...
    "Researchers Demonstrate Laser Hard Drives"

    Paul, Jul 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bad Disciple wrote:

    Pretty OT in comp.compression...
    PATA makes no sense anymore, intel dropped support for it in their
    chipset, and only additional external chips on the motherboard add
    support. 150MB/sec is more than a decent HD can deliver, it is no
    serious limitation anyhow. Go for SATA.

    So long,
    Thomas Richter, Jul 3, 2007
  4. Bad Disciple

    cr88192 Guest


    I wonder why it is not possible, say, to cram together several technologies.
    this would include, say, a fairly large (several GB or more) non-volatile
    cache stuck on normal HDs.

    so, IO goes first to the cache, and as space is needed, it is forced out to
    the platters. for general operation this could be faster, but performance
    could be reduced during large write-intensive runs.

    potentially the read and write cache could be partly seperated, for example,
    to avoid completely flooding the cache (and killing general performance) for
    write-intensive runs, ...

    maybe a generational scheme for managing the cache (older yet frequently
    accessed data having much more "staying power", than newer but less
    frequently accessed data).


    other ideas, mostly related to caching algos, ... but, it is not clear
    exactly how much processing flexibility the typical HD has, ...
    cr88192, Jul 4, 2007
  5. Bad Disciple

    Mark Mandell Guest

    Don't know if this will help but I have a Pentium Dual Core Pentium D with a
    WD SATA Raptor Series 10,000 RPM drive.
    Works fabulous(of course "netwise" it helps that I have high speed DSL
    connection with a download speed of nearly 3.0 mbps).
    Mark Mandell, Jul 4, 2007
  6. There are two non-volatile cache schemes already available; battery
    backed RAM (which can function as either a cache or a hard drive
    itself), or flash-based. The latter gained interesting support in
    Windows Vista, which claims to be able to use USB connected flash drives
    as cache rather than writing to a hard drive. There are also the 40 gig
    hard drives made up of entirely flash storage, used primarily to
    increase battery life in laptops (they typically offer more random
    IOs/second, which is why they can be faster than current generation hard

    Of course flash has a limited number of times you can write to it
    (typically thousands of writes), so has latent reliability issues as
    compared with hard drive (typically millions of writes).

    - Josiah
    Josiah Carlson, Jul 4, 2007
  7. Bad Disciple

    tony sayer Guest

    Could you set up[ a driveless PC?, well one with a flash drive that it
    could boot off. Wouldn't need to do much else apart from run one prog
    and that wouldn't be very taxing?..
    tony sayer, Jul 4, 2007
  8. Bad Disciple

    Pete Fraser Guest

    Pete Fraser, Jul 4, 2007
  9. Bad Disciple

    tony sayer Guest

    Thanks but I intended/meant a conventional desktop version?..
    tony sayer, Jul 4, 2007
  10. Most modern machines can boot off of USB flash drives. There are linux
    distributions built specifically for booting off of flash drives, and
    you can even get windows XP to boot. There have been various articles
    linked on osnews.org and slashdot.org . Use Google.

    - Josiah
    Josiah Carlson, Jul 4, 2007
  11. Bad Disciple

    tony sayer Guest

    Thanks I'll look it up..
    tony sayer, Jul 5, 2007
  12. Bad Disciple

    Bad Disciple Guest

    Thank you all for the feedback.

    It seems we're crossing another doorstep in computing.
    Where will this end?... If we take our human example,
    the best computer which is our brain is not the fastest...

    However, I might have some other questions about
    my new setup and I may post them in a new posting.
    Thanks again.
    Bad Disciple, Jul 5, 2007
  13. Bad Disciple

    Jim Leonard Guest

    Here's some more: Stop cross-posting general computer questions in
    Jim Leonard, Jul 5, 2007
  14. Bad Disciple

    cr88192 Guest

    I had assumed it being built into the drive itself, not as a seperate

    hopefully, it would be non-volatile (like flash). battery backup could be a
    problem for write caching in that if the drive were idle for too long, some
    of its contents could be lost.

    maybe some kind of semi-stable cmos memory (aka: sram) or similar could work
    (at least it would get a lot of time out of the battery).

    possibly, the memory could be generational, with sram for more volatile
    contents (mid-generation read/write caching) and flash for more stable
    caching, with the platters used mainly for bulk storage. purely temporary
    caching ("first generation") could likely be done using dram. purely
    dram+flash is another option (with data needing to be near-static before
    being written to flash).

    of course, in terms of cost and complexity all this could be impractical

    afaik, most modern drives have a fairly small dram-based cache, but this is
    a little less useful given it can't be used for holding data "in general"
    (in the end, everything has to go out safely to the platters before the next
    power-down, and has to be read from them anew the next time they are

    or something...
    cr88192, Jul 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.