Two Questions:

<sdeyoreo DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kapp205jvcs9lago5hhl65ahgl0cgaom4s@4ax.com...
 > Sata drives transfer at up to 150MB/sec as opposed to PATA at up to
 > 100MB. Also SATA doesn't use that fat 80 connductor ribbon cable. Uses
 > a much thinner cable. Later SATAs will go up to 300 MB/sec.
 > Dual channel memory looks like 2 seperate banks of memory, supposed to
 > do transfers twice as fast. Find info on this at Intel's site.

150MB/sec is much faster than bits come off the disk which is about 15 MB
and is limited by the physical turning. 1 full turn of a disk is 63 sectors
per turn * 256 bytes/sector * 8 bits/byte every 7200 RPM (120 RPs) is
15,482,880 bits/sec peak rate. But you cannot achieve even this
continuously. A disk cache and look ahead striping help, but the CPU is
ultimately doing READ-WAIT-THINK, READ-WAIT-THINK, ... SATA is not going
to make anything faster.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

William W. Plummer wrote:

 > <sdeyoreo.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 > news:kapp205jvcs9lago5hhl65ahgl0cgaom4s@4ax.com...
 >
  >>Sata drives transfer at up to 150MB/sec as opposed to PATA at up to
  >>100MB. Also SATA doesn't use that fat 80 connductor ribbon cable. Uses
  >>a much thinner cable. Later SATAs will go up to 300 MB/sec.
  >>Dual channel memory looks like 2 seperate banks of memory, supposed to
  >>do transfers twice as fast. Find info on this at Intel's site.
 >
 >
 > 150MB/sec is much faster than bits come off the disk which is about 15 MB
 > and is limited by the physical turning. 1 full turn of a disk is 63 sectors
 > per turn * 256 bytes/sector * 8 bits/byte every 7200 RPM (120 RPs) is
 > 15,482,880 bits/sec peak rate. But you cannot achieve even this
 > continuously. A disk cache and look ahead striping help, but the CPU is
 > ultimately doing READ-WAIT-THINK, READ-WAIT-THINK, ... SATA is not going
 > to make anything faster.
 >
 >
 >
 >

This poster is essentially correct, however the better disk drives that
can be commonly found(such as Western Digital brand) usually have a much
higher sustained transfer rate somewhere in the 30 MBps and higher.
Mostly SATA is best for faster potential burst data rate, and getting
rid of all those ugly ribbon cables. One thing I was sorry to see was it
didn't break out of that Master/Slave and maximum of 2 devices per
channel. I was hoping to see something a little more like SCSI, though
of course not nearly as complete due to cost constraints. One nifty
thing about SATA that I have begun to see is external SATA cases that
connect to your computer through a SATA port on the back of some PCI
cards. Perhaps this will lead to some lower cost external hot swap SATA
devices? we'll see.

Aaron<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:57:17 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
<William.PlummerXNOSPAMX.RemoveThis@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

 ><sdeyoreo.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 >news:kapp205jvcs9lago5hhl65ahgl0cgaom4s@4ax.com...
  >> Sata drives transfer at up to 150MB/sec as opposed to PATA at up to
  >> 100MB. Also SATA doesn't use that fat 80 connductor ribbon cable. Uses
  >> a much thinner cable. Later SATAs will go up to 300 MB/sec.
  >> Dual channel memory looks like 2 seperate banks of memory, supposed to
  >> do transfers twice as fast. Find info on this at Intel's site.
 >
 >150MB/sec is much faster than bits come off the disk which is about 15 MB
 >and is limited by the physical turning. 1 full turn of a disk is 63 sectors
 >per turn * 256 bytes/sector * 8 bits/byte every 7200 RPM (120 RPs) is
 >15,482,880 bits/sec peak rate. But you cannot achieve even this
 >continuously. A disk cache and look ahead striping help, but the CPU is
 >ultimately doing READ-WAIT-THINK, READ-WAIT-THINK, ... SATA is not going
 >to make anything faster.

But as disks get denser and faster, one could theoretically exceed the
datarate of PATA, so launching SATA now, and waiting for actual drives
that can take advantage of SATA speeds is IMO, a good thing.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

I was hoping to see something a little more like SCSI, though
 > of course not nearly as complete due to cost constraints.

Is SCSI faster than SATA ?

Plebism<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

The Plebism wrote:
 > I was hoping to see something a little more like SCSI, though
  >> of course not nearly as complete due to cost constraints.
 >
 > Is SCSI faster than SATA ?

The latest spec stuff is, sure. It's also three times the price and puts out
twice the heat. (15,000rpm drives).
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

~misfit~ wrote:

 > The Plebism wrote:
 >
  >>I was hoping to see something a little more like SCSI, though
  >>
   >>>of course not nearly as complete due to cost constraints.
  >>
  >>Is SCSI faster than SATA ?
 >
 >
 > The latest spec stuff is, sure. It's also three times the price and puts out
 > twice the heat. (15,000rpm drives).
 > --
 > ~misfit~
 >
 >

3 times the price? usually alot more, especially for the latest spec.
The latest spec is 320 MB/s, however of course that is only the maximum
theoretical bandwidth. SCSI also is a much different implementation than
IDE which is far superiour in everything except price. To learn more
about SCSI check out <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://scsifaq.org" target="_blank">http://scsifaq.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

Thanks to all for everyones' input on this. So basically what it boils down
to is that SATA is faster at transferring, though not quite as fast as SCSI?
And that Dual Channel is just suppose to process things quicker, correct? I
know it is redundant but I just wanted to make sure.

That leads to a couple other questions then - is SATA worthwhile to have?
And secondly, is Dual Channel really better and worth getting? Has there
been any real noticed improvements for these two things?

Thanks again to all for their input (or output as it were).
<sdeyoreo DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kapp205jvcs9lago5hhl65ahgl0cgaom4s@4ax.com...
 > Sata drives transfer at up to 150MB/sec as opposed to PATA at up to
 > 100MB. Also SATA doesn't use that fat 80 connductor ribbon cable. Uses
 > a much thinner cable. Later SATAs will go up to 300 MB/sec.
 > Dual channel memory looks like 2 seperate banks of memory, supposed to
 > do transfers twice as fast. Find info on this at Intel's site.
 >
 > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:42:10 GMT, "tag10196" <tag10196 DeleteThis @ameritech.net>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >Alright, I have been out of active PC technology for a couple of years
now.
  > >I am looking at various new MB's and came across two things I am not
  > >familiar with.
  > >What is the difference between ATA and SATA drives? Actually what are
SATA
  > >drives?
  > >Next question, What is Dual Channel DDR? I know what DDR is but what is
this
  > >Dual Channel?
  > >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:31:21 GMT, "tag10196" <tag10196 RemoveThis @ameritech.net>
wrote:

 >Thanks to all for everyones' input on this. So basically what it boils down
 >to is that SATA is faster at transferring, though not quite as fast as SCSI?
 >And that Dual Channel is just suppose to process things quicker, correct? I
 >know it is redundant but I just wanted to make sure.
 >
 >That leads to a couple other questions then - is SATA worthwhile to have?
 >And secondly, is Dual Channel really better and worth getting? Has there
 >been any real noticed improvements for these two things?
 >

Right now, possibly, if you want simpler cabling, but for perfomance,
I'd say not yet.


 >Thanks again to all for their input (or output as it were).
 ><sdeyoreo RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
 >news:kapp205jvcs9lago5hhl65ahgl0cgaom4s@4ax.com...
  >> Sata drives transfer at up to 150MB/sec as opposed to PATA at up to
  >> 100MB. Also SATA doesn't use that fat 80 connductor ribbon cable. Uses
  >> a much thinner cable. Later SATAs will go up to 300 MB/sec.
  >> Dual channel memory looks like 2 seperate banks of memory, supposed to
  >> do transfers twice as fast. Find info on this at Intel's site.
  >>
  >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:42:10 GMT, "tag10196" <tag10196 RemoveThis @ameritech.net>
  >> wrote:
  >>
   >> >Alright, I have been out of active PC technology for a couple of years
 >now.
   >> >I am looking at various new MB's and came across two things I am not
   >> >familiar with.
   >> >What is the difference between ATA and SATA drives? Actually what are
 >SATA
   >> >drives?
   >> >Next question, What is Dual Channel DDR? I know what DDR is but what is
 >this
   >> >Dual Channel?
   >> >
  >>
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

tag10196 wrote:
 > Thanks to all for everyones' input on this. So basically what it boils down
 > to is that SATA is faster at transferring, though not quite as fast as SCSI?
 > And that Dual Channel is just suppose to process things quicker, correct? I
 > know it is redundant but I just wanted to make sure.

Well, SATA is possibly faster than older ATA, but deffinately simpler
cableing. However SCSI(at least newer SCSI) is deffinately faster,
especially in RAID configurations that they are often in.

 > That leads to a couple other questions then - is SATA worthwhile to have?
 > And secondly, is Dual Channel really better and worth getting? Has there
 > been any real noticed improvements for these two things?
 >
There has been some small evidence that Dual channel increases
performance. in theory it does significantly, however all the benchmarks
I have see indicate only a small increase.

Aaron<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

"Gary Tait" <classicsat DeleteThis @yahoo.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:mrp130h3rl9qkbmttmbfe7kvenfjvd86e1@4ax.com...
 > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:31:21 GMT, "tag10196" <tag10196 DeleteThis @ameritech.net>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >Thanks to all for everyones' input on this. So basically what it boils
down
  > >to is that SATA is faster at transferring, though not quite as fast as
SCSI?
  > >And that Dual Channel is just suppose to process things quicker, correct?
I
  > >know it is redundant but I just wanted to make sure.
  > >
  > >That leads to a couple other questions then - is SATA worthwhile to have?
  > >And secondly, is Dual Channel really better and worth getting? Has there
  > >been any real noticed improvements for these two things?
 >
 > Right now, possibly, if you want simpler cabling, but for perfomance,
 > I'd say not yet.
Exactly right. The transfer protocol is NOT a limit to performance and it
simply does not matter which you use. Your hard drive will not slow down
because you use P-ATA and it will not turn faster because you use SCSI.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: 

Thanks again to all.
"tag10196" <tag10196.DeleteThis@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:md%Wb.6562$PY.572@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
 > Alright, I have been out of active PC technology for a couple of years
now.
 > I am looking at various new MB's and came across two things I am not
 > familiar with.
 > What is the difference between ATA and SATA drives? Actually what are SATA
 > drives?
 > Next question, What is Dual Channel DDR? I know what DDR is but what is
this
 > Dual Channel?
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Two Questions: