Scott Long wrote: > Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >>> BTW - in a recent test of 2.5" high-capacity HDD, it was noted that >>> SATA required significantly more power than PATA. Well 'significant' >>> to a laptop on battery, anyway. >> >> Perhaps I am just very unlike the typical user but why on earth have >> unix on a laptop (or even have a laptop for that matter ;-)) >>> Easier to maintain data integrity comes to mind as well as power budget. >> >> On any mobo that can support SATA/300 one would think the bus/cpu could >> keep pace so wheres the issue? > > Disk platter speed and density are the primary forces in actual > interface speed. The fastest SATA disks I've seen so far do around > 95MB/s, well lower than the 150MB/s that SATA150 can give. The > advantage to SATA300 (and SATA600 when/if it comes out) are: > > 1. faster cache speed for burst transfers > 2. better scaling for port multipliers (but most just use SAS for this > anyways) > 3. more profits for drive makers who convince you that faster is > inherently better. > > Scott > I suspect SATA 600 will have another use entirely.... As the basis for a low-connector-count interface to NAND flash and such as solid-state begins to replace rotating memory. Add power & ground leads, and it should already have access to better controllers and deliver lower overhead and latency for that use than USB or FW 800, be cheaper than current DDR interface. JM2CW BillReceived on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 18:41:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC