This message is from the T13 list server.
I have been told that none of the current bridge chips support the packet command set (not that they won't or can't). This is why I chose the word "ignored". I was trying to find devices that supported SATA and didn't seem to find any of the ones I mentioned. Even the little paddle cards to adapt PATA to SATA do not support the Packet Command set (since they all use the same bridge chips). However, I was XMAS shopping at Fry's and found lots of USB2.0 DVD and ZIP devices. Just making a point. I am not sure these guys are interested since they are slower by nature and might not really gain anything by going to SATA. However, the hot pluggability (this isn't a word according to spellchecker) and portability of USB is perfect for their world. gary laatsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin J. Pole II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "T13" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: RE: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > All the ATAPI command set will work with SATA. There is no reason that CDs, > DVDs, and ZIP devices could not be easily adapted to SATA. In fact, it is > important for ATAPI device vendors to transition to SATA as quickly as > feasible. > > Edwin J. Pole II > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > $ -----Original Message----- > $ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gary > $ Laatsch > $ Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:48 PM > $ To: T13 (E-mail) > $ Subject: Re: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > $ > $ > $ > $ This message is from the T13 list server. > $ > $ > $ It seems to me that since SATA has kind of ignored the ATAPI part > $ of T13 (at > $ least for now) that maybe the committee shouldn't rush into including it. > $ From my short experience with SATA it appears to be targeted at > $ RAID and not > $ the normal everyday folk. How many SATA CD's, DVD or ZIP devices are > $ available out there. I am not sure SATA is even going to take off, I am > $ thinking it might have missed its window and be dead. It looks to me like > $ USB2.0 has more focus from alot of the mass storage folks. Of > $ course, this > $ is just my personal opinion. > $ > $ gary laatsch > $ Unemployed Firmware Engineer > $ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > $ > $ > $ ----- Original Message ----- > $ From: "Andre Hedrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > $ To: "T13 (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > $ Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:58 PM > $ Subject: RE: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > $ > $ > $ > This message is from the T13 list server. > $ > > $ > > $ > > $ > <rant> > $ > Why not just merge T13 and T10 back togather into the X3 group as the > $ > purpose of SAS is to promote the existance of a dead standard on the > $ > physical layer. > $ > > $ > The reality is SAS is only around to promote the extra bloated costs > $ > associated w/ SCSI and make claims T10 hardware is superior to T13's. > $ > > $ > Turning ATA in to the "ends justify the means" transport is not what is > $ > desired. Moving from a state-machine to a fuzzy-bus-state, only makes > $ > things a mess. > $ > > $ > Spliting volumes so that one part of the committee is clueless > $ to what the > $ > other part is doing is wrong and needs to go back to T10, regardless. > $ > </rant> > $ > > $ > Ah, that feels better. > $ > > $ > > $ > > $ > Andre Hedrick > $ > LAD Storage Consulting Group > $ > > $ > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: > $ > > $ > > This message is from the T13 list server. > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > Rather than keep the ATA-7 volume 1/2 split that exists today (adding > $ > > volume 3 for SATA?), would it make sense to split it into three > $ > > standards: > $ > > > $ > > 1. ATA architecture and command set (what Volume 1 has today) > $ > > 2. Parallel ATA transport protocol (what Volume 2 has today) > $ > > 3. Serial ATA transport protocol (which will be revised many times in > $ > > the future) > $ > > > $ > > ATA/ATAPI-7 would be like SCSI-3, the last global ATA/ATAPI-n number. > $ > > > $ > > Rather than work on ATA/ATAPI-8 next and upgrade the commands and > $ > > transport protocols at the same time (even if they don't all need > $ > > changes), ATA Commands - 2, 3, etc. work could progress independently > $ > > from Serial ATA - 2, 3, etc. work. Parallel ATA - 1 might be the last > $ > > version of that standard. > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > As discussed before, I'd also urge you to consider these renamings as > $ > > Serial ATA is added: > $ > > device -> target > $ > > host -> initiator > $ > > Parallel ATA/volume 2 uses "Parallel ATA initiator/target" > $ > > Serial ATA/volume 3 uses "Serial ATA initiator/target" > $ > > Command set/volume 1 uses "ATA initiator/target" > $ > > > $ > > This is patterned after the terminology used by the SCSI standards > $ > > and would help ATAPI and SAS (which both use ATA and SCSI together). > $ > > > $ > > -- > $ > > Rob Elliott, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > $ > > Hewlett-Packard Industry Standard Server Storage Advanced Technology > $ > > https://ecardfile.com/id/RobElliott > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > > $ > > > -----Original Message----- > $ > > > From: Mclean, Pete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > $ > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:23 PM > $ > > > To: T13 (E-mail) > $ > > > Subject: [t13] FW: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > This message is from the T13 list server. > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > -----Original Message----- > $ > > > From: Ziller, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > $ > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:54 PM > $ > > > To: 'Mclean, Pete'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > $ > > > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > $ > > > Subject: Transfer of SATA 1.0 spec to T13 > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > Dear Technical Committee T13, > $ > > > > $ > > > The Serial ATA Steering Committee is very interested in > $ > > > transferring the > $ > > > Serial ATA 1.0 specification over to the T13 Committee as > $ > > > soon as possible > $ > > > to be incorporated into the ATA/ATAPI Rev 7 release. The > $ > > > Steering Committee > $ > > > has already voted and unanimously approved this transfer. We > $ > > > can start > $ > > > having the Promoter companies approve and execute the > $ > > > copyright release > $ > > > forms as soon as we hear that the T13 Committee has voted to > $ > > > accept the > $ > > > Serial ATA 1.0 specification. If the T13 Committee votes to > $ > > > accept the spec > $ > > > in December, then we expect to be able to transfer the spec > $ > > > by January 2003. > $ > > > Also, we are in the process of incorporating the existing > $ > > > errata into the > $ > > > specification, and expect that will be completed within the > $ > > > same timeframe. > $ > > > Please let us know what your critical deadlines are, and if > $ > > > the above meets > $ > > > your needs. > $ > > > > $ > > > Regards, > $ > > > > $ > > > Jason Ziller > $ > > > Serial ATA Working Group chairman > $ > > > > $ > > > > $ > > > $ > > $ > > $ > $ >
