This message is from the T13 list server.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:53:33 -0800, Mark Overby wrote: >This message is from the T13 list server. >I'll throw into the hat: >Defining a session (host) layer if the commands change away from task-file >based to FIS-based. Yea, me too... Merging SATA into ATA/ATAPI-7 was a *MAJOR* mistake. SATA is not compatible with PATA. Trying to produce a single ATA/ATAPI standard for will always be a major problem. More and more every day it is clear that SATA has a number of problems that make it unique and very much unlike PATA. The fact that SATA even comes close to looking like (but not executing like) PATA is all in the host controller for which there is no specification or standard. This mess is growing larger every day with more and more incompatibilities being found. I strongly encourge the move to a "native" SATA host controller interface ASAP (call it FIS based or whatever). Lets get the world to move away from this stupid "SATA is just like PATA" idea ASAP. I think ATA/ATAPI-7 is and will continue to be a huge mistake. ATA/ATAPI-8 should go back to just being PATA and a entirely new standard should be created for SATA that *INCLUDES* a new host controller interface specification (maybe that is AHCI?). As things are it will be virtually impossible to produce a single standard for PATA and SATA in one document (like ATA/ATAPI-7) - there are just too many conflicting things going on in these two interfaces. Plus even today (when SATA is promoted as a ANSI T13 project) most of the SATA technical issues are still being resolved by "secret society" meetings (giving many people the false idea that SATA is now an "open" standard - it is not). I say all of this because I continue to have problems when I test SATA devices - I generally can't run tests for more than a few minutes with getting timeout problems, hung controller/devices, data compare problems and other strange errors. All of this tells me that 1) SATA implementations have lots of problems (and some of those are spec issues that have been discussed here) and 2) some are the simple fact that SATA is not really compatible with PATA. PATA is still a healthy interface and still the primary interface being used. Lets don't mess it up in some misguided attempt to merge the SATA and PATA standards - that has a very low chance of actually working - as we see today. Hale *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com ***
