SATA II

[Ext User(MJT)]

I noticed today reading the Green Guide, in one of the PC shops that
advertises there that they have SATA II hard disks. One's a Western
Digital 250 gig with 16 mb cache.

Will this run on a normal SATA controller? Or would I have to get a SATA
II controller? If it will run on SATA "I", would it see any performance
benefit over a similar WD with 8 mb cache? (I know that it wouldn't have
the higher SATA II transfer rates).

Also, what's a good controller card to get? Presumably they'll work on
motherboards with build in SATA controller such as my Asus P5 GD1 Pro
board.

Thanks


--
"I stand by all the mis-statements that I've made."- GW Bush

[Ext User(Paul C)]

No realy benifit over sata 1 over 2.

Might be slightly faster. What i do notice is Sata 2 drivers are
cxheaper than the same sized Sata 1 drives. So go with the SATA2
drives. They are backwards compatioble anyways.



On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:43:02 +1000, MJT <mjpt57@yahoo.com.com.au>
wrote:

>I noticed today reading the Green Guide, in one of the PC shops that
>advertises there that they have SATA II hard disks. One's a Western
>Digital 250 gig with 16 mb cache.
>
>Will this run on a normal SATA controller? Or would I have to get a SATA
>II controller? If it will run on SATA "I", would it see any performance
>benefit over a similar WD with 8 mb cache? (I know that it wouldn't have
>the higher SATA II transfer rates).
>
>Also, what's a good controller card to get? Presumably they'll work on
>motherboards with build in SATA controller such as my Asus P5 GD1 Pro
>board.
>
>Thanks

[Ext User(MJT)]

Paul C wrote:

> Might be slightly faster. What i do notice is Sata 2 drivers are
> cxheaper than the same sized Sata 1 drives.

The vendors that I checked had the Sata2 drives about $5-10 dearer than
the Sata1 versions.

What I'm interested in is the larger cache drives and if they'd have any
performance benefits over the 8 mb ones, whether they're running sata1
or sata2.



--
"bachelor"; (n); someone who doesn't make the same mistake once

[Ext User(/nul)]

sata 1 150MB/s
sata 2 300MB/s

A moot point but the data rate from the hd is only 55MB/s



On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:43:02 +1000, MJT <mjpt57@yahoo.com.com.au> wrote:

>I noticed today reading the Green Guide, in one of the PC shops that
>advertises there that they have SATA II hard disks. One's a Western
>Digital 250 gig with 16 mb cache.
>
>Will this run on a normal SATA controller? Or would I have to get a SATA
>II controller? If it will run on SATA "I", would it see any performance
>benefit over a similar WD with 8 mb cache? (I know that it wouldn't have
>the higher SATA II transfer rates).
>
>Also, what's a good controller card to get? Presumably they'll work on
>motherboards with build in SATA controller such as my Asus P5 GD1 Pro
>board.
>
>Thanks

[Ext User(MJT)]

/nul wrote:

> sata 1 150MB/s
> sata 2 300MB/s
>
> A moot point but the data rate from the hd is only 55MB/s

According to the data sheet on one of Seagate's SATA drives that I'm
looking at, a Barracuda 7200.9 drive "has it all".

 Drives automatically configure to either new 3-Gbit/second or legacy
1.5-Gbit/second

Why would it be limited to 55 MB/Sec as you suggest?



--
"Today's payslip has more deductions than a Sherlock Holmes novel."

[Ext User(Colin ®)]

"MJT" <mjpt57@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43e179d0.00003308.bm003@yahoo.com.au...
> /nul wrote:
>
>> sata 1 150MB/s
>> sata 2 300MB/s
>>
>> A moot point but the data rate from the hd is only 55MB/s
>
> According to the data sheet on one of Seagate's SATA drives that I'm
> looking at, a Barracuda 7200.9 drive "has it all".
>
>  Drives automatically configure to either new 3-Gbit/second or legacy
> 1.5-Gbit/second
>
> Why would it be limited to 55 MB/Sec as you suggest?


Possibly because that is the sustained transfer rate, not the burst rate. I
don't think it would be that low though.

My 7200 JB Seagate can do the full IDE channel rate in burst from the cache
but it has a sustained rate of around the 80 mark AFAIR - on a 133 Mb bus
( close to SATA1)

I would have thought the SATA drives had a higher sustained rate but
certainly not the burst rate

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Colin ® <tobyjug7@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> MJT <mjpt57@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> /nul wrote:

>>> sata 1 150MB/s
>>> sata 2 300MB/s

>>> A moot point but the data rate from the hd is only 55MB/s

>> According to the data sheet on one of Seagate's SATA drives that I'm
>> looking at, a Barracuda 7200.9 drive "has it all".

>>  Drives automatically configure to either new 3-Gbit/second or legacy
>> 1.5-Gbit/second

>> Why would it be limited to 55 MB/Sec as you suggest?

> Possibly because that is the sustained transfer rate, not the burst rate.

The real reason is that he's confusing the interface capability with
what the drive physically can do due to the RPM and sectors per track.

> I don't think it would be that low though.

> My 7200 JB Seagate can do the full IDE channel rate in burst from the
> cache but it has a sustained rate of around the 80 mark AFAIR - on a 133
> Mb bus ( close to SATA1)

It isnt that high.

> I would have thought the SATA drives had a higher sustained rate but
> certainly not the burst rate

Its got nothing to do with the interface capability with the sustained
rate.
The interface is always faster than the drive physical characteristics can
do.

[Ext User(/nul)]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:10:43 +1100, MJT <mjpt57@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>/nul wrote:
>
>> sata 1 150MB/s
>> sata 2 300MB/s
>>
>> A moot point but the data rate from the hd is only 55MB/s
>
>According to the data sheet on one of Seagate's SATA drives that I'm
>looking at, a Barracuda 7200.9 drive "has it all".
>
> Drives automatically configure to either new 3-Gbit/second or legacy
> 1.5-Gbit/second
>
>Why would it be limited to 55 MB/Sec as you suggest?

The "interface" runs at 3GB/s

The heads on the disk read at 55MB/s

Download hdtune and see for yourself.