Serial ATA and Serial SCSI 134
aibrahim writes "In the recent Slashdot article about Serial ATA some people wanted to know where SCSI was going, and if Serial ATA could deal with some higher end workstation and low end server requirements. Apparently it has been decided that Serial ATA 2 (pdf doc) and Serial Attached SCSI are the answers."
firewire (Score:1, Interesting)
Where are the drives? (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Internal firewire? (Score:1, Interesting)
Does anyone know if there have been any steps anywhere in the Industry toward the eventual offering of internal hard drives that use FireWire? Would that not be cost efficient?
just like the RAMBUS story (Score:2, Interesting)
and then, people demanded more bandwidth... so now we have double / quad pumped RAMBUS channels -- in the end (today) it's back to 64-bit data-bus *anyhow*... except with an architecture that's not designed for parallel operation.
do anybody see some parallel (ha!) here?
i am guessing (or, predicting) that serial ATA / SCSI will go the same route. i really hope that it won't -- because if it did, our lives will all be kinda rough -- but it probabbly will.
sigh...
Re:Serial ATA v. SAS (Score:2, Interesting)
ATA/SCSI distinction (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure the only reason they keep the difference is to be able to charge more from people building servers. It's purely a marketing and price positioning decision.
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
They still don't say that serial ATA will support more than two devices per channel. In fact they say it will be software compatible with ATA in its current form, suggesting it continues the master/slave relationship.
Today's drive media can only reach 40MB/s reading from the platters for short bursts, if their lucky. Normally they'll read/write about 20MB/s. What's the point of another boost in speed of ATA (to the suggested 150MB/s) when you will only ever be able to use 80MB/s of that. Oh, that's right... the ignorant users need bigger numbers on their cardboard boxes to show off to the neighbors.
Does anyone have any information on a HD soon to be released that will offer a quantum leap of read-from-meadia performance to something like 75MB/s? That's more than triple the current read-from-meadia speeds, and they seem to only ever increase the speeds by about 1-2MB/s each year.
SCSI makes sense having very high bus bandwidth, as you can connect quite a few devices and use the connect/disconnect to send simultaneous reads/writes to multiple devices. In that scheme, you can keep most of your drives operating at the same time. Of course Apple has shown that at least for a small RAID, multiple independent ATA channels are just as fast and lower cost than a single SCSI channel. I persoanally have a difficult time thinking that multi-ATA design would scale well to a 32 drive RAID, where a dual channel SCSI would shine.