Juha Saarinen wrote:
Yes, there is software overhead to consider, and the speeds are most
likely burst speeds.
On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get around 50MB/sec or so with about 2G file, so we're in the same
ballpark. In round numbers, this is 1/3 the theoretical throughput
of a SATA-150 or 1/6 that of SATA-300. Now, I *am* curious on what
the bottlenecks are. 50MB/sec isn't a whole lot different that what
I'd expect out of a modern PATA drive.
I'm getting 50-55Mbyte/s as well, on an ICH7-equipped board and
SATA-150 hard drive. Seems to fall within expectations. The maximum
theoretical interface speed isn't the same as what you get from the
device connected to it, unfortunately. It's pretty fast still
considering the price of the hardware, and if you want more, use RAID.
So, noting the better cabling
and the wide availability of on-board RAID, it sure looks to me like
is no compelling argument to be made for SATA in non-RAIDed
I'm guessing the drives are the same ones as their PATA counterparts,
with different interface electronics, so we're not going to see
reliability and/or performance under load.
Not entirely correct. SATA is hot-swappable, and you can get drives
with command queuing for improved performance. No master/slave jumper
fiddling either, which is nice. It's a technology not to be spat at,
basically, and it's much cheaper than SCSI.
Agreed. SATA is a nice technology, and the price is right.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"