SATA II HDD's are out!!

[goog]

SCSI advantage in two words: seek time.

 

[goog]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Bust performance has no impact on real word use.

Cheers!

Funny time to type bust instead of burst, and word instead of world. Word is great for testing drive limits.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: goog

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Bust performance has no impact on real word use.

Cheers!

Funny time to type bust instead of burst, and word instead of world. Word is great for testing drive limits.

LOL

 

[1921Photoelectric]

Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA NCQ160gb drive, I'm looking right now at a letter mailed to me from Seagate, I just won it! :shocked: I entered a contest they had on their web site a couple months back. My question is I have a WD 37.5 G 10,000 HD which would be faster the WD ( not true SATA but 10,000 rpm) or the Seagate? For Free I can not complain Christmas came early! :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

 

[pish180]

As far as SCSI and SATA, They made SATA as an aternative to SCSI. SCSI is very expensive, and is usually slower at comparable costs. Unless you already have a SCSI controller, then it is not worth it unless you are going to spend the money to get 15k rpm drive(s)... and that would cost a good 500-up depending on what you get.

As far as SATA II, correct me if I am wrong, but... It will be just like the P-ATA interface era, the only thing that will have to change so that you can get the burst speed of 300MB/s will be the southbridge and the chipset on the hdd itself. It will be backwards compatiable, and you will still see the sustained transfer rates on the sata I interface. Not sure why newegg.com wrote that those drives are SATA II, i know what NCQ is one of the technology's that will be in SATA II hdd. Maybe there is something that were are not being told about those drives. Such as they already have the chipset that suports SATA II on the hdd. :-/

The only drives that will honestly see an advantage with the sata II is, 10k drives RAID 0, 16mb cache (on each drive= total of 32mb of cache) and NCQ.


::Links::
----------
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9194

NCQ - message board
http://www.anandtech.com/talkarticle.aspx?i=2094

 

[imported_obgow]

Newegg is wrong about the sata11, but the 20% performance increase is suppose to come from the ncq.

 

[thorin]

Personally I can't wait till both worlds come together with Serial Attached SCSI

Thorin

 

[AristoV300]

Got to love that 5 year warranty on the drive. That is a first for me to see.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: 1921Photoelectric
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA NCQ160gb drive, I'm looking right now at a letter mailed to me from Seagate, I just won it! :shocked: I entered a contest they had on their web site a couple months back. My question is I have a WD 37.5 G 10,000 HD which would be faster the WD ( not true SATA but 10,000 rpm) or the Seagate? For Free I can not complain Christmas came early! :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

I don't know, but I've been lovin' Seagate lately. I've got four of them (two in my main rig and two in my Tivo) that have been spinning away quietly for a year or more. I've had bad luck concerning WD and Maxtors that start out fairly quiet but within 6 months to a year begin to whine like a million mosquitoes.

Which would be faster? It depends how you use the drives (or more specifically, how the application uses the drives). Transfer speed is a combination of rotational speed and data density; roughly speaking, it's calculated as the data density of each platter times the rotation speed. Average latency is strictly dependant upon rotational speed; higher RPM means lower latency--you can figure this out on a calculator. Average seek time is dependant upon how fast the drive mechanism swings the head assembly to the right track; rotation speed means nothing in terms of seek time. Surprising to many, the interface (PATA vs. SATA) makes little difference. Sustained transfer speed is generally well under half what the interface is capable of supporting anyway; the major limiting factor is still the mechanical limit of the drive, not the electronic limit of the interface.

With this in mind when you benchmark an older 37.5 GB 10,000 RPM drive against a newer 7,200 RPM 160 GB drive, you may see a significant difference, or little to no difference at all, depending on the data density and seek times (both of which generally improve with time).

 

[Sureshot324]

What i don't get, is WHY are scsi drives faster? Unless i'm mistaken, scsi is just the interface, so thoeretically you could make a wd raptor with a scsi interface and it would be a scsi drive but it would be the same speed since it doesn't even max out the sata bandwidth.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

NCQ. I thought that NCQ actually slows down performance on the single user level but speeds things up nicely on the multi-user level (i.e. servers etc.)

SATA 2 at 300MB/s will not speed up the hardrives.

Would SATA 2 allow for 2 drives on one channel without performance penalty?

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
What i don't get, is WHY are scsi drives faster? Unless i'm mistaken, scsi is just the interface, so thoeretically you could make a wd raptor with a scsi interface and it would be a scsi drive but it would be the same speed since it doesn't even max out the sata bandwidth.

For one thing, with SCSI you can always get the bleeding edge of state-of-the-art; 15,000 RPM (or faster?--I'm not "up" on all the latest stuff) and the fastest seeks. Unless I'm mistaken, SCSI controllers, as a rule, also use fewer system resources than the various flavors of IDE (PATA 100/133, SATA I/II, etc.); therefore, the entire system can run faster despite heavy disk activity.

 

[gobucks]

getting an SATA-II drive is not nearly as important as getting a mobo that supports SATA-II. These current SATA-II drives, if they are in fact SATA-II, are way too slow to see any benefit. Other improvements, like 16MB buffers and NCQ, make more of an impact than SATA-II. Eventually, when there are 148GB Raptors running at 10000RPM with 16MB buffer and NCQ, then we might start to see SATA150 as a bottleneck. Until then, SATA150 drives will be fine. Don't get me wrong, getting SATA-II support ala nforce4 is a good thing, since your next HDD upgrade will likely take advantage of it, but for your current drive, you'd be much better off looking for a Maxtor Diamondmax 10 or Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 with 16MB buffer and NCQ if you are looking for a performance 7200RPM drive. And as for NCQ, it's not a huge boost, but the boost is there, and reviewers often talk of a general feel of more respnosiveness, even if it is hard to capture in benchmarks. From that perspective, it's like Hyperthreading - hard to quantify, but definitely a smoother experience overall.

 

[essential]

Has anyone heard anything about the next-generation of Raptors, hopefully with Sata II, NCQ, and a 16meg buffer? Does anyone know if WD has anything in the works? Would be nice to have something like this around christmas so a new system could be built with a nice new raptor and a nice new nf4 mobo.