This message is from the T13 list server.
Thanks for explaining. Next question, if I may:
In PATA, choosing to populate pm/ps or sm/ss rather than pm/sm gets the host into
compatibility trouble. First the host discovers which masters & slaves fail to agree
that the slave exists. And then, even when everyone agrees the slave exists, still
the master loses bandwidth to the slave, any time they are both used simultaneously.
Do we have any idea yet if both/either of these experiences will carry over into SATA,
driving host folk to favour the pm/sm choice that eats both legacy channels?
Pat LaVarre
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Laatsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 7/25/2002 3:06 PM
To: Pat LaVarre; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: RE: [t13] SATA
Yes a SATA controller is 1 drive per port and 2 ports for controller (2
drives). I think configurable as either pm/ps, pm,sm, or sm/ss. Usig the first or
last would allow you to still run one of the PATA controllers. Using the middle
config would take up both legacy channels.
gkl
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat LaVarre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [t13] SATA
This message is from the T13 list server.
> I think the original question was
> "Does SATA support only a master and slave on each bus?"
Does it even support that much?
I had heard SATA supported one device per port: thus a master only, no slave.
A min cost host might support the connection of a boot hard drive, a CD drive, and
nothing else ... unless the Else included a more or less vendor-specific hub of its
own to give the appearance of a daisy chain, like parallel printer port devices often
do.
Is that baseless slander?
Curiously yours, Pat LaVarre
