This is just so stupid. We supposedly have this international organization to come up with what the stanard should be. But, they don't have the common sense to be the ones that decide how it's labeled on packages? That's brilliant. Now the marketing dip-shits at WD, Maxtor, Seagate, Hitachi,etc, will have free reign over what to call this stuff.
It's on the path to being as totally logical and easy to figure out as SCSI. And that's just scsi!
I realize a Cache might speed up a hard drive a little, but putting that aside, a hard drive has to be able to read the data before it can transmit it over the SATA/SATAII I/O interface. I dont think even with 2 hard drives in raid you can exceed the ATA133 I/O transfer rate.
I think this is much ado about nothing. The transfer speed is faster than the hard drive can physically retrieve the data without a valid reason to be. What we need is better hard drives not a faster transfer rate. I have thought we need to take the raid concept and build that into a single hard drive at the hardware level. If a hard drive can have 3 metal platters, why cant it raid itself?
12 - The point of the article is that just because a drive says it is "SATA II", that doesn't mean it will have NCQ or hot plugging support (among other things). I know Kris and I had assumed that "SATA II" at the very least included these two features, whereas on "SATA I" they were optional. The only thing SATA II seems to guarantee right now is 300 MBps of theoretical bandwidth (theoretical meaning no drives can really make use of that right now).
Do the WD SATA2 drives support NCQ? I don't know. Hopefully we can find out soon. :)
I seriously don't understand this article. The last time I looked WD did offer SATA2 hard drives at 3Gb/s. I know that Newegg for awhile was advertiseing Seagate drives as SATA2 but I just looked and they stopped doing that. Now there is Serial Attached SCSI drives out.
>The three main misconceptions are that:
>- SATA II" has now been renamed to SATA-IO
Wasn't this just mentioned in a previous quote:
"...SATA II is not the brand name for SATA's 3Gb/s data transfer rate, but the name of the organization formed to author the SATA specifications. The group has since changed names, to the Serial ATA International Organization, or SATA-IO"?
I feel a little lost here. This is actually sloppy work by these SATA-fellows.
I'm with #4: let's have a SATA roundup where HDDs carrying the SATA-II label can proof what they are really about. We should also include mobo support. To what extend do popular mobos with "SATA-II support" really support all the goodies?
This is really like the days of "ATA-100" and "ATA-133" - the latter of which never was an official ATA spec. What will "SATA II" actually add relative to SATA? Higher burst transfer rates, which will mean very little. With 16MB of cache, it takes less than .1 seconds to empty the entire HDD buffer, and we can now get that down to .05 seconds! Woohoo!
"what would a SATA II drive that just meets the base requirements have over a SATA I drive"
There is no 2nd generation spec, so no one knows or can tell you. The features you listed were all expected to be in the spec so it looks like everyone jumped the gun and just implemented the features and slapped a SATA II name on it, since that what it used to be called. The SATA II committed broke up, and then reformed as SATA-IO, but it's too late in the game to try and change the name now, everyone is familiar with SATA II, so whether they like it or not, the features we have become familiar with being attached to SATA II is what it is going to be even if a real 2nd generation spec is released that is different.
So, basically SATA II will just be used as a marketing term providing little in terms of new and better standards. The HDD makers will just use it cuz they are able to.
I wonder if people just started saying "SATA II" much like we say "Xbox 2" or Playstation 3", to describe the next product for which we don't yet have a name for. I guess it caught on and caused a little confusion.
I have to admit this didn't really make anything clearer. If SATA II doesn't require NCQ, 3Gb/sec speeds, or hot swapping, what would a SATA II drive that just meets the base requirements have over a SATA I drive(i.e. what's the difference between SATA I and II)?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
Back to Article
braytonak - Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - link
This is just so stupid. We supposedly have this international organization to come up with what the stanard should be. But, they don't have the common sense to be the ones that decide how it's labeled on packages? That's brilliant. Now the marketing dip-shits at WD, Maxtor, Seagate, Hitachi,etc, will have free reign over what to call this stuff.It's on the path to being as totally logical and easy to figure out as SCSI. And that's just scsi!
piasabird - Saturday, July 16, 2005 - link
I realize a Cache might speed up a hard drive a little, but putting that aside, a hard drive has to be able to read the data before it can transmit it over the SATA/SATAII I/O interface. I dont think even with 2 hard drives in raid you can exceed the ATA133 I/O transfer rate.I think this is much ado about nothing. The transfer speed is faster than the hard drive can physically retrieve the data without a valid reason to be. What we need is better hard drives not a faster transfer rate. I have thought we need to take the raid concept and build that into a single hard drive at the hardware level. If a hard drive can have 3 metal platters, why cant it raid itself?
rprice999 - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - link
This is all a crock anyway, I have never even gotten over 75megs/second transfer rate on my SATA Raid 0 setup.NCQ will be a help, but increasing throughput to 3gbs when 1.5 is not even close to attainable in a real world setting is just a waste.
Cullinaire - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
SATA 360 coming soonJarredWalton - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
12 - The point of the article is that just because a drive says it is "SATA II", that doesn't mean it will have NCQ or hot plugging support (among other things). I know Kris and I had assumed that "SATA II" at the very least included these two features, whereas on "SATA I" they were optional. The only thing SATA II seems to guarantee right now is 300 MBps of theoretical bandwidth (theoretical meaning no drives can really make use of that right now).Do the WD SATA2 drives support NCQ? I don't know. Hopefully we can find out soon. :)
evenglow - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I seriously don't understand this article. The last time I looked WD did offer SATA2 hard drives at 3Gb/s. I know that Newegg for awhile was advertiseing Seagate drives as SATA2 but I just looked and they stopped doing that. Now there is Serial Attached SCSI drives out.n00btoo - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
This part of the article is confusing:>The three main misconceptions are that:
>- SATA II" has now been renamed to SATA-IO
Wasn't this just mentioned in a previous quote:
"...SATA II is not the brand name for SATA's 3Gb/s data transfer rate, but the name of the organization formed to author the SATA specifications. The group has since changed names, to the Serial ATA International Organization, or SATA-IO"?
ceefka - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I feel a little lost here. This is actually sloppy work by these SATA-fellows.I'm with #4: let's have a SATA roundup where HDDs carrying the SATA-II label can proof what they are really about. We should also include mobo support. To what extend do popular mobos with "SATA-II support" really support all the goodies?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
This is really like the days of "ATA-100" and "ATA-133" - the latter of which never was an official ATA spec. What will "SATA II" actually add relative to SATA? Higher burst transfer rates, which will mean very little. With 16MB of cache, it takes less than .1 seconds to empty the entire HDD buffer, and we can now get that down to .05 seconds! Woohoo!Pariah - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
"what would a SATA II drive that just meets the base requirements have over a SATA I drive"There is no 2nd generation spec, so no one knows or can tell you. The features you listed were all expected to be in the spec so it looks like everyone jumped the gun and just implemented the features and slapped a SATA II name on it, since that what it used to be called. The SATA II committed broke up, and then reformed as SATA-IO, but it's too late in the game to try and change the name now, everyone is familiar with SATA II, so whether they like it or not, the features we have become familiar with being attached to SATA II is what it is going to be even if a real 2nd generation spec is released that is different.
bigboxes - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
So, basically SATA II will just be used as a marketing term providing little in terms of new and better standards. The HDD makers will just use it cuz they are able to.Disappointing.
ryanv12 - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
meh, my 4 year old IDE WD 120 GB hard drive is still chuggin on :)flatblastard - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
I wonder if people just started saying "SATA II" much like we say "Xbox 2" or Playstation 3", to describe the next product for which we don't yet have a name for. I guess it caught on and caused a little confusion.Live - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
Very informative. Chosing a harddrive is getting very complex. Time for a big old roundup maybe?AnnihilatorX - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
lol that's just plan silly.The Serial ATA International Organization specifies a "specification" (SATA-IO) which is itself NOT a specification?
This ain't funny
KristopherKubicki - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
ViRGE: The difference between SATA 1.0a and stripped down SATA II seems to be the royalties go to SATA-IO.Kristopher
ViRGE - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
I have to admit this didn't really make anything clearer. If SATA II doesn't require NCQ, 3Gb/sec speeds, or hot swapping, what would a SATA II drive that just meets the base requirements have over a SATA I drive(i.e. what's the difference between SATA I and II)?