Recommended Posts

You are talking about the speed of the interface, which is either 3Gb/s or 150Mb/s.

The fastest hard drives can't even break 100Mb/s.

It is as if you have two highways, one rated for 300mph traffic, and one at 500 mph traffic. If the fastest car only does 200mph, then both highways will let you equally fast (200mph, the limit of your car)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are talking about the speed of the interface, which is either 3Gb/s or 150Mb/s.

The fastest hard drives can't even break 100Mb/s.

It is as if you have two highways, one rated for 300mph traffic, and one at 500 mph traffic. If the fastest car only does 200mph, then both highways will let you equally fast (200mph, the limit of your car)

Oh but you are so wrong grasshopper...the Seagate 15.5K SCSI HDDs can break 100Mb/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually he is right *grasshoper*

if your are wise enough to consider the context.

:ph34r:

the context is SATA, not SCSI,

but while there might not be any ONE drive that can break that barrier, there are a bunch of them in RAID 0 that can :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all grasshoppers...

hard drives passed 100Mb/s over ten years ago.

"b" is bit and "B" is byte

And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Oh bfg9000 - You can't use your speedometer to it's full extent? Mayby you should upgrade the engine! ;)

websaab06.jpg

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unlikely you'll gain any real world speed going with SATA 150. However, the newer interface allows for small cables and no more master/slave configurations. The parallel interfaces did not have further room to grow to accommodate newer drives which *will* need more bandwidth, hence the jump to serial (i.e. SATA and SAS).

Similarly, SATA 300 is not needed purely because the drives are becoming that fast, but because it (the specification) has several other useful features, such as port multiplying and mandatory hot swap/command queueing support. Port multiplying *does* mean it's possible to saturate SATA 150 since you can connect multiple drives at a time, though you still won't, AFAIK, need jumpers or the like to set master/slave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Oh bfg9000 - You can't use your speedometer to it's full extent? Mayby you should upgrade the engine! ;)

websaab06.jpg

Cheers!

Hey!

Isn't the speedometer in km/h... It still seem to be bellow 200mph!

MEJV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mickey's got a pretty comprehensive answer.

The higher speeds of SATA 1.5Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s will affect burst transfers, but that effect is pretty small-- the real world gain that people are looking for is essentially zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are talking about the speed of the interface, which is either 3Gb/s or 150Mb/s.

The fastest hard drives can't even break 100Mb/s.

It is as if you have two highways, one rated for 300mph traffic, and one at 500 mph traffic. If the fastest car only does 200mph, then both highways will let you equally fast (200mph, the limit of your car)

Port Multiplier -

You can have 3 drives sharing one channel w/o taking a hit on performance. And with four channel controllers, you can have up to 20 drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Everyone for clearing that up. continuum- I applaud your correct usage of 'affect' and 'effect'.

LOL! A fellow pedant! :D 'Ensure' and 'insure' are another oft-abused pair. Bugs the hell out of me!

(Yes, I know that's ungrammatical!) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Oh bfg9000 - You can't use your speedometer to it's full extent? Mayby you should upgrade the engine! ;)

[*img]http://tuxx.dk/content/images/websaab06.jpg[/img]

Cheers!

Hey!

Isn't the speedometer in km/h... It still seem to be bellow 200mph!

MEJV

Oh come on you guys, stop trying use non-sequitors like that...Bugatti Veyron like the one former SR mod-FS did NOT see (where do all you SR members get such potent hallucinagenic drugs, it's not fair) over a year ago (cause they had not even gone into production as yet...never trust FS's blind statements of...err 'truisisms' ;-), as he's prone to 'psychotic rants' :D.... post #10 http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...opic=17695&st=0

),

does upwards of 250mph on a suitable road, and a Ferrari Enzo will do about 160mph before taking out a power pole on PCH just north of Malibu on occasion ;) ).

Hmm, you know, despite my lack of potent hallucinagenics, I did see a black Veyron on my way home the week before M.I.3 opened http://www.wwtdd.com/index.php?type=cat&na...%20Tom%20Cruise

TomKat, preggers Holmes being helped out of the Veyron by your local luny:

http://autothing.com/funthings/funthings-atnewsroom.htm

, rather odd looking and kind of 'noisy' low grumble at just above idle, not like a Lambo, and not the shreiking hyper engergy rush of an Enzo/Ferrari...hardly noticeable really. Now how do I get my hands on the 1 of 20 Ferrari FXX's? (Enzo on Barry Bonds steroids).

Mickey's got a pretty comprehensive answer.

The higher speeds of SATA 1.5Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s will affect burst transfers, but that effect is pretty small-- the real world gain that people are looking for is essentially zero.

"Essentially zero" for average SR reader, but not at all for everyone. The interfaces/standards are designed such that they can accomodate a variety of needs, not ever dumbed down to encompase the fastest 'single' drive now or in the near future, that would be silly.

You are talking about the speed of the interface, which is either 3Gb/s or 150Mb/s.

The fastest hard drives can't even break 100Mb/s.

It is as if you have two highways, one rated for 300mph traffic, and one at 500 mph traffic. If the fastest car only does 200mph, then both highways will let you equally fast (200mph, the limit of your car)

Port Multiplier -

You can have 3 drives sharing one channel w/o taking a hit on performance. And with four channel controllers, you can have up to 20 drives.

Yep, and there are plenty of people who can use that many drives, upwards of 20.

2k res, uncompressed HD video needs minimum of 275MB/s (so how many gigabits it that? ;) )

http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/docs/Dat...er/viper_ds.pdf

And in fact, if you dl this pdf, you'll see that you can get 10 minutes (not very much) of uncompressed HD 2k video onto a SSD RAM drive (anyone remember the Gilbo SSD Gigabyte thread? all those neysayers about how slow RAM tech is...sure for 5 years ago, just like 15k SCSI drives are slow from that era, just like laptop 7.2k drives are freakin fast, not 'dog slow' as most SR members including Eugene would contend, compared to 7.2k desktop leaders of just a few years ago).

Oh, heck I should probably go see the Da Vinci Code, at the 1st 4k res. Sony projection system, to see how much better it is over the average 2k res. digital projectors now in major cities of the world.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/NewSt...1588314-ap.html

So how much storage do you need for 4k video stream? Well with the Dalsa, you need 1.2GB/s STR's and Terabytes worth of storage.

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dcc/news/news.asp?itemID=244

Here's a really really old ('grasshopper' damn, you guys are making me feel young again, ) comparison from 2004 about how much bandwidth and HD indie filmmaker would need (darn, that's expensive even for pr0n)

http://www.hdforindies.com/2004/08/hd-digi...mediate-storage

Now if you want to edit more than 1 or 2 streams of uncompressed HD 2k res. footage, you'll need lottsa disks, port multiplication for sure...shssssh, don't even said RAID0 on SR :-).

http://www.barefeats.com/hard72.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Oh bfg9000 - You can't use your speedometer to it's full extent? Mayby you should upgrade the engine! ;)

websaab06.jpg

Cheers!

Why is it that nobody has yet mentioned that you really should not be holding or using a digital camera while driving at those speeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's useful for marketing, just like the 150mph speedometer in your car.

Oh bfg9000 - You can't use your speedometer to it's full extent? Mayby you should upgrade the engine! ;)

websaab06.jpg

Cheers!

Why is it that nobody has yet mentioned that you really should not be holding or using a digital camera while driving at those speeds?

It could have been aimed and mounted on a tripod, triggered with a timer. Or it could just be a frame capture from video, I've recorded my runs at the track that way as well.

re: 3Gb/s SATA, at first I dismissed it, didn't realize they were doing multi-port stuff now. Obviously if you can do command queueing and such then it's worthwhile to spit out a sequence of commands to multiple disks at the fastest speed possible, and then let the drives crunch on them at their own pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now