|Carlos Konstanski on 14 Aug 2005 23:44:40 -0000|
The 2.6 kernel supports SATA, meaning your kernel can read your root filesystem fine without an initrd image. That is a plus (though not advantageous over PATA).
When faster drives come out, you can replace your 150 with something quicker. The cable supports up to 300. Not possible with PATA.
The price is usually only a little more than the PATA equivalent. A minus, but a small one.
There are mobile racks that take 5 SATA drives and fit in the space of 2 CDROM bays. That's kinda cool. Not sure if they make those for PATA drives. They probably do.
The cable routing is much cleaner. Always a plus.
It follows the trend of cabling past: the big, flat parallel cable gives way to the single serial wire, and somehow much greater speeds are achieved. Why is that? Does the timing and synchronization of 40 signals in tandem take more time than shooting 40 consecutive signals down a single wire as fast as all getout? Must be the case. SATA will only get faster, while PATA will probably not.
I don't really feel any noticeable speed increase myself with a year-old version of one of these drives. In fact, a quick hdparm test shows the SATA drive (/dev/hde) to be a touch slower:
root@homeserv:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda /dev/hda: Timing cached reads: 1332 MB in 2.00 seconds = 665.10 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 180 MB in 3.03 seconds = 59.36 MB/sec
root@homeserv:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hde /dev/hde: Timing cached reads: 1324 MB in 2.00 seconds = 661.77 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 164 MB in 3.03 seconds = 54.10 MB/sec
root@homeserv:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda /dev/hda: Timing cached reads: 1324 MB in 2.00 seconds = 661.44 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 176 MB in 3.02 seconds = 58.19 MB/sec
root@homeserv:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/hde /dev/hde: Timing cached reads: 1332 MB in 2.00 seconds = 665.10 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 162 MB in 3.01 seconds = 53.88 MB/sec
This compares a Samsung 160GB PATA drive with the SATA version of the same drive. The SATA drive is a 150. If I were to plug in a faster SATA drive into this same machine, I'd be curious to see how the numbers change.
There are 2 ways to access these drives in the 2.6 kernel: SCSI or libata. Maybe one is faster than the other? Haven't played around with it really.
Until they start making them faster, I don't see them as any better than PATA. They're a fine way to get more drives plugged into your machine, as they do not take up nodes on the IDE cables. In a single-drive box it makes no difference, and it comes down to price.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Stewart B. Lone wrote:
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:00:38 -0400 From: Stewart B. Lone <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List <email@example.com> Subject: [PLUG] hard drives
___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug