SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better?

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh RemoveThis @att.net>
wrote:
 >
 >Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
 >I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
 >
  >> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
  >> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
  >> beta tester.
 >
 >Catch up.
 >

Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
off your precious SATA raptor.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</a>

Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

"willbill" <trek.TakeThisOut@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:cjpsst0njv@enews4.newsguy.com...
 > you use a raid 0 as your boot c:\ partition?
 >
 > with which ver. of Windows?
 >
 > and which SP?
 >
 > Raptors aren't that big, so what is your
 > raid 0, maybe 60 or 80GB in overall size?


Yes, raid 0 on the C:. They are the 74 gb drives so the full NTFS formatted
array is 138.49 GB. XP SP1.

 > by "MS-DOS" do you mean a boot floppy disk
 > that is made from Win98? if yes, imho
 > you'd be better to call that DOS98

When you make a ghost 2003 boot disk you are given the choice: Boot to PC
DOS or MS DOS, I chose MS-DOS. I don't want to confuse anybody by using
terminology that ghost doesn't use, even if "MS-DOS" is really based on a
win98 boot disk, which it was in this case.

  > > and made a complete disk
  > > backup to another raid array made up of SATA disks. The second array
uses a
  > > LSI Megaraid 150-4 controller and 3 WD 250GB SATA disks in a raid 5
config.
  > > It may sound quite complicated, but within ghost you just see a source
drive
  > > and a destination-its not confusing at all. I have used it on Dell
  > > Poweredge 2600 servers too, with PERC SCSI raid, no problem.
 >
 >
 > that looks interesting. 500GB in the
 > 2nd raid should give you enough for
 > several images of your c:\ (on the 1st raid,
 > with room to spare too

Yep, its a lot of space. I was kind of shooting for overkill because I
really hate running out of space and dealing with adding or replacing disks.

 > out of curiosity, do you use more than
 > one NTFS partition for the 2nd raid?

Just one partition. I didn't really research that move, but I do like it.

 > i'm also assuming you run some drivers
 > in the config.sys and/or autoexec.bat
 > for DOS-Ghost-2003 to be able to see
 > both raid arrays? or does DOS-Ghost-2003
 > somehow hadle this on it's own?

Nothing special, just a standard ghost boot disk.

 > i'm not trying to put you down but have
 > to ask this:
 >
 > have you ever restored any of those backups
 > of your c:\ to a completely different c:\
 > on different sata disks, and actually been
 > able to boot up off of the restored c:\
 > without a hitch???

No I have not, but I strongly believe it would work just fine because it has
already shown it is capable of both reading and writing to arrays as if they
were just single disks. I have used Ghost explorer and successfully
retrieved data from an image on several occasions.

snip
  > > When I try
  > > to do a ghost backup within windows, the computer reboots and starts in
a
  > > DOS mode running ghost.
 >
 >
 > ok, which means it's some flavor of DOS
 >
 > again, which Windows are you using?

XP sp1.

 >
  > > Its not like the operation is completed within windows.
 >
 >
 > afaik, it's either very hard or even impossible for
 > a GUI OS to do a full image type backup due to all the
 > open files on the c:\ partition that you're trying
 > to backup
I am pretty sure acronis tru image does it, I used a demo from them and made
an image. I didn't restore it however, I just wanted to check out the
backup scheduler and get a feel for it. Another amazing tech achievment,
this workstation started with 1 raptor, I added the 2nd raptor a month later
and used Intels software for this board to actually convert 1 disk into a 2
disk raid 0 array-while windows was running!

 >
  > > And yes, this works too just as well as a boot disk. A program
  > > called Acronis Tru Image will image from within windows and at scheduled
  > > times, ghost can't do that as far as I know.
 >
 >
 >
 > is this Acronis Tru Image the company that
 > also provides the "DOS" that gets booted?
 > and does it's DOS boot process load drivers
 > for the two raid arrays that you have?
I don't know.

 > have you been able to get any insight
 > into exactly what gets run/loaded during
 > the DOS boot what you do a Windows initiated
 > DOS backup for your 1st raid array?
For ghost right? Can't remember how, but I think it does something to your
normal boot partition so that it isn't "active" anymore, then boots up
somehow to ghost which must have been put somewhere strategic.

 >
  > > If your 160GB drive has been
  > > backed up to a ghost image, but fails the next day, you can indeed
restore
  > > to the last ghost image. You just remove the bad drive and install a
fresh
  > > empty drive, boot to a ghost floppy and go through the options to
restore an
  > > image to a disk-and choose the fresh drive. Upon the next reboot you
will
  > > not even notice a difference between the old drive and your new
drive-its
  > > that simple.
 >
 >
 > have you actually ever done a real
 > restore of your very large home workstation
 > setup with those 2 large raid hard drive arrays
 > to be sure that it really can be done?

Actually no, but again I am very confident that it would work just fine.
The images made from the arrays are proven good images, I have restored
files from them on several occasions. I have on several occasions replaced
drives on single disk workstations and restored ghost images with no
problems at all. Since the raid hardware makes the arrays appear as single
disks, and has shown to read properly, I think it would work if I needed to
do so. But I understand that without doing it, I am not 100% sure.

--Dan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

heretic.RemoveThis@sata_n.com wrote:

 > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh.RemoveThis@att.net>
 > wrote:
  >>
  >>Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
  >>I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
  >>
   >>> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
   >>> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
   >>> beta tester.
  >>
  >>Catch up.
  >>
 >
 > Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
 > raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
 > off your precious SATA raptor.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

heretic.DeleteThis@sata_n.com wrote:

 > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
 > <jclarke.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
 >
  >>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
  >>
  >>...
   >>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
  >>
  >>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
  >>not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
  >>fast or quiet.
 >
 >
 > Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>

So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
the point you miss.

 > "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
 > its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
 > on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
 > Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
 > products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
 >
 > We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
 > Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
 > the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
 > follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
 >
 >
 > Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
 > they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
 > extra layer of conversions added on.
 >
 > Guess which one would be faster ?

Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
have them.

 > PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
 >
 > Yes... that's why it's called heresy

Actually it's called idiocy.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:58:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:

 >heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
 >
  >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
  >> <jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
  >>
   >>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
   >>>
   >>>...
   >>>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
   >>>
   >>>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if you're
   >>>not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of something
   >>>fast or quiet.
  >>
  >>
  >> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
  >>
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
 >
 >So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
 >the point you miss.
 >
  >> "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
  >> its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
  >> on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
  >> Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
  >> products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
  >>
  >> We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
  >> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
  >> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
  >> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
  >>
  >>
  >> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
  >> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
  >> extra layer of conversions added on.
  >>
  >> Guess which one would be faster ?
 >
 >Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that you
 >have them.
 >
  >> PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
  >>
  >> Yes... that's why it's called heresy
 >
 >Actually it's called idiocy.

You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.

Poor even by your sorry standards.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:55:37 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote:

 >heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
 >
  >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh DeleteThis @att.net>
  >> wrote:
   >>>
   >>>Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just fine.
   >>>I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
   >>>
   >>>> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
   >>>> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
   >>>> beta tester.
   >>>
   >>>Catch up.
   >>>
  >>
  >> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
  >> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
  >> off your precious SATA raptor.
  >>
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
  >>
  >> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.
 >
 >I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that article demonstrates that the drive
 >would offer higher peformance with a PATA interface.


Obviously.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

<heretic DeleteThis @sata_n.com> wrote in message

 > Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
 > they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
 > extra layer of conversions added on.
 >
 > Guess which one would be faster ?

A tie...get a clue.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:12 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh.TakeThisOut@att.net>
wrote:

 >
 ><heretic.TakeThisOut@sata_n.com> wrote in message
 >
  >> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
  >> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
  >> extra layer of conversions added on.
  >>
  >> Guess which one would be faster ?
 >
 >A tie...get a clue.
 >

Nonsense, you and Clarke are such fawning clowns.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

<heretic.RemoveThis@sata_n.com> wrote in message
news:dac2m0tdckiri1e2s7hogslkvdr9q2f44r@4ax.com...
 > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh.RemoveThis@att.net>
 > wrote:
  > >
  > >Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just
fine.
  > >I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
  > >
   > >> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
   > >> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
   > >> beta tester.
  > >
  > >Catch up.
  > >
 >
 > Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
 > raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
 > off your precious SATA raptor.

Clueless.

<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.

Everything on that site supports my position. Your position doesn't exist.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh.TakeThisOut@att.net>
wrote:

 >
 ><heretic.TakeThisOut@sata_n.com> wrote in message
 >news:dac2m0tdckiri1e2s7hogslkvdr9q2f44r@4ax.com...
  >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:20:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh.TakeThisOut@att.net>
  >> wrote:
   >> >
   >> >Nonsense. Want today's fastest ATA drive. It's SATA and works just
 >fine.
   >> >I use SATA Raptors on high uptime servers with NO problems.
   >> >
   >> >> If you're aware of how these standards and toys evolve eg
   >> >> 33,66,100,133,150SATA; I'd wait for the next step before becoming a
   >> >> beta tester.
   >> >
   >> >Catch up.
   >> >
  >>
  >> Oh, Ron, give it up. The reason Western Digital won't release a
  >> raptor without the marvel converter chip is it would beat the pants
  >> off your precious SATA raptor.
 >
 >Clueless.
 >
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
  >>
  >> Catch up yourself, oh SATA guru.
 >
 >Everything on that site supports my position. Your position doesn't exist.
 >

Nonsense, Ron. Tell me, are you still involved in selling product or
services in this area ?

Sorry to cause you loss of face.

But... you are so full of it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

heretic.TakeThisOut@sata_n.com wrote:

 > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:58:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
 > <jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
 >
  >>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
  >>
   >>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:22:22 -0400, "J. Clarke"
   >>> <jclarke.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
   >>>
   >>>>heretic@sata_n.com wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>>...
   >>>>> Just get a standard Western Digital drive in the size you want.
   >>>>
   >>>>So what's the model number for a 10,000 RPM PATA WD drive? And if
   >>>>you're not going with a Raptor then why a Western Digital instead of
   >>>>something fast or quiet.
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
   >>>
<font color=brown>   >>> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
  >>
  >>So what? Where can I buy one that has the PATA interface exposed? That's
  >>the point you miss.
  >>
   >>> "...Hullo! What do we have here then? Upon tilting the drive around
   >>> its transverse axis, our attention is drawn to the only chip located
   >>> on the underside of the board. This is a Serial ATA Bridge from
   >>> Marvel, which is currently used in many places in order to make
   >>> products compatible with the UltraATA interface for Serial ATA.
   >>>
   >>> We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
   >>> Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
   >>> the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
   >>> follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> Ah..., that was, Western Digital could release a pata version anytime
   >>> they wanted if I read correctly. But you have to buy one with an
   >>> extra layer of conversions added on.
   >>>
   >>> Guess which one would be faster ?
  >>
  >>Why don't you give us the numbers on both, since you seem to think that
  >>you have them.
  >>
   >>> PS does yours still have the jumpers too ?
   >>>
   >>> Yes... that's why it's called heresy
  >>
  >>Actually it's called idiocy.
 >
 > You're slipping Clarke, your whole answer is nonsense.
 >
 > Poor even by your sorry standards.

I see. So you don't have any numbers to present to demonstrate that a drive
with a bridge chip is slower than one without, and you don't know where one
can get drive with a PATA interface that has the same performance as a
Raptor, so instead you resort to insults. Typical response of the
intellectually bankrupt. My only regret is that I wasted my time reading
your posts.

<plonk>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

Just started postin today as a newbie troll I see.

<heretic.DeleteThis@sata_n.com> wrote in message
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better? 

heretic.DeleteThis@sata_n.com wrote in message news:<6tb2m091n7pd596083qupkq7t3lgp4rktj.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...

 > Your vaunted 10k Raptor IS a PATA with a converter chip:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font" target="_blank">http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030501/wd360-05.html</font</a>>
 >
 > "...We thus know one thing for sure, namely that the WD360 is not a new
 > Serial ATA development, but a product that was originally developed on
 > the basis of an UltraATA interface. And that also means that WD could
 > follow up with a WD360 and UltraATA/100 interface at any time...."

I imagine (but can't prove) that the onboard cache is parallel. I also
imagine that there are other good reasons to have a parallel data path
in the drive electronics. Thus I'm not surprised that a proven
parallel-serial bridge chip is used.

It would be interesting to know if there is anything different on a
"native SATA" drive vs. an "apparent PATA-SATA kludge." What we don't
know is, how much of the PATA interface was left off then the SATA
bridge chip was tacked on this particular drive. It's educated
speculation, but speculation nonetheless that a PATA interface will
ever be available on this product. I counterspeculate that the reuse
of some of the PATA electronics represented good cost savings because
the STR bottleneck is upstream anyway. For a PATA version to be
marketed, the overall benefit would have to exceed the cost of
tooling. It could very well be that they make a higher margin on the
SATA drives, so they might be betting on pushing the market in that
direction by limiting the supply of the lower margin PATA (again, my
speculation only).

%mod%<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: SATA vs IDE/ATA 133-- how much better?