Economics of SATA hard drive

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:48:25 -0700, "Ed Light"
wrote:

So with a pci card could he still make 20 Mb/S? That would be ok until he
upgraded his motherboard.


IF he didn't mind paying more for lower performance, ok.
It still doesn't resolve the other issues though, for
example his sound may not work properly anymore, or some
other device on the PCI bus. "Maybe" some PCI latency
changes can fix it, but WHY would someone pay more to do
this?

Are we certain he is planning on pulling this drive out at
some later date and using it as the main boot drive on the
next new system? It could help to know if this is the top
priority above all else, and how long it will be until that
next system purchase.

If the next system purchase wouldn't be far off, it could
make more sense to go ahead and buy it rather than spending
on a PCI SATA card. if the next system purchase is a couple
years or more away, it may not make sense to reuse the drive
as the main boot/os drive later as right now we have a big
shift in the industry to perpendicular recording and that
may change performance a lot in the next couple years,
especially combined with the next-generation of drives with
giant flash memory caches on them.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:41:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

kony wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
kony wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote

THEN the PATA card is bought, and possibly then
in PCI Express format which is a further benefit.

They aren't available now, so why would they be available then.
If you hadn't noticed, PCI IDE is being phased out now already.

PCI express cards are still being developed,

Nope, there's plenty of SATA PCIe cards around. Just no IDE ones.

There are a few, but "plenty"? I don't think so. Having a
select few cards for a given function is hardly a market
saturation. I am confident there will be multiple times as
many PCI Express cards available in the next few years.

Bet there will be **** all PCI Express RAID cards for PATA drives.

We don't know that for certain, even if you don't assume as
I do that there will be some.

What you have also ignored is that boards STILL HAVE PCI
SLOTS. All the conditions you presuppose in order to make
your argument for SATA, when combined together become
incredibly unrealistic.

Rod Speed wrote:

chrisv wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have 2 systems with two PCI PATA cards in them
currently. Cables are quite manageable if one merely
chooses the right length of cable, rounded if desirable.

No thanks, I'm not stupid enough to flout the ATA standard.

You dont need to with SATA.

You ignore his point that cables are quite manageable.

No I didnt. And I was JUST commenting on how likely it is
that anyone WILL BOTHER TO DEVELOPE A PCI Express
RAID card for PATA drives due to the cable mess WITH THOSE.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your predicament
better than that, Ron. The above shows that you clearly ignored the
real issue, that PATA cables are quite manageable, and proceeded to
rant about round PATA cables.

Period. Even with flat PATA cables.

Wrong, as always.

Ridiculous and false claim noted. People have been managing PATA
cables for years, Ron.

"Ed Light" wrote:
It's a shame because this newsgroup has been very neat for years.
Perhaps he'll get totally filtered out.


You'll eventually realize that most of the argumentive postings
in this one thread are by sock puppets, four of them so far, several
of them animated by the same guy. It's funny and amazing how sick
people can get.

*TimDaniels*

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote

In short, paying more to use a SATA card
when it ends up SLOWER is madness.

There is no slower with one HD on it. Stop harping that point.

It is in fact slower. Were you paying attention to the
details provided in the thread?

Simple scenario:

System 1
KT266A motherboard
PCI SATA controller card
Typical budget grade HDD, 160GB Seagate SATA

System 2
KT266A motherboard (both systems same beyond drive and PCI card)
Southbridge integral PATA
Typical budget grade HDD, 160GB Seagate PATA

System 2 will bench faster, more than a single digit %
difference if the disk subsystem is a significant bottleneck
in whatever-the-test.

And if you cant even pick between those
two configs in a proper double blind trial,

Who said "you" couldn't pick?

No one.

That has not been established.

Thats why I repeatedly used the word BET.

So far the ONLY evidence presented are the links I
have provided that clearly show it WILL BE SLOWER.

Irrelevant if you cant even pick between them with a proper double blind trial.

This is leap #1 you need to make the point.

Wrong, as always.

it makes much more sense to go the SATA drive route

Actually there is only one possible scenario
where the SATA drive makes the most sense...

Wrong, as always.

IF:

1) User doesn't care about the performance, AND

Wrong, as always. What matters is if the user can pick
between the two configs in a proper double blind trial.

2) User doesn't mind paying more for lower performance, AND

You aint established that the user does pay more
when you consider the total cost of the old and new
systems because buying a SATA drive now gives
much more choice with the new system and may
well allow a cheaper new motherboard to be used.

3) User does eventually install the drive in the next
system, actually DOES it, not just thinks about it, AND

Rather unlikely that he wouldnt given
that its the best drive available.

4) Next system did only have one IDE channel
instead of 2, so only 2 device support, AND

Thats the only one you did actually manage to get right.

5) User also wanted more than one other PATA device
installed, which would have to assume the first device were
a PATA ATAPI drive?? OR there is already yet another PATA
device being transferred, AND YET there is still the one
PATA position open even on the least # of PATA channels, 1.
Now consider that user's next board may have 2 channels,

He STILL gets more choice if he has a SATA drive.

or he may transfer an existing PATA PCI card
and then will have PLENTY of PATA channels.

Pity that the user has already said that he doesnt like
the fact that booting off a drive on one of those is a mess.

So far we already have 5 specific conditions necessary
to benefit even the slightest bit eventually,

No we havent, and they are certainly not ALL required either.

but having to suffer the performance penalty now no matter what.

But a 'performance penalty' that the user
cant even pick in a proper double blind trial.

Then there's PAYING to do that...

You aint even established that that happens either when
the total cost of the new and old systems is considered.

Most people would want to be PAID to do that.

Most people are completely irrelevant, what matters is the OP.

SO YOUR CHOICE OF NEW SYSTEM ISNT CONSTRAINED and
so the new system will be completely bog standard with the SATA
drive as the boot drive in the new system and you dont have to find
and implement a PCI Express PATA card for the PATA boot drive.

You're out of your mind.

You couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

For all we know that next system will have a
new drive bought at that time and the current
drive being considered isn't used at all

Wrong. The OP CLEARLY said that he wants
to be able to move that drive to the new system.

or in a secondary role.

Why would he with the new system ?

The only thing known for certain right now is:

Wrong, as always.

- Drive connected to the southbridge controller will
be faster, all else being equal (choosing same relative
product tiered drive in PATA vs SATA interface).

Irrelevant if the user cant even pick that in a proper double blind trial.

- System natively supports one but not the other and by your
own terms is a "dinosaur" which makes less and less sense
to be buying more cards for, particularly when unnecessary.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PCI SATA CARD IS THAT IT
GIVES YOU A LOT MORE CHOICE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM.

I see you just don't understand, and I'm ok with that.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

I have presented one option and leave it to the OP to decide
since we will clearly not come to an agreement on this.

Yep, you've never ever had a ****ing clue on the basics.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

If we were considering a 800MHz CPU (era) system,
it would not be as much of a bottleneck to have that age
of drive on one but even considering the drives of the
Via KT266 era, those DID show the performance penalty,

Bet they didnt with a non boot drive.

Since any kind of testing would be of a synthetic
bench or real world app, not booting or running the
OS, it would not matter if the boot drive or not.

What matters is how the system is to use, not some benchmark.

YES!!

That is EXACTLY why the PCI SATA card is such a horrible idea.

You aint established that the user will even notice any speed difference.

In anything but the synthetic benchmark, the PCI bus will be
playing a more significant role in performance degradation.

You aint established that the user will even notice any speed difference.

The synthetic bench where only the drive was being
accessed is just the tip of the iceburg. By adding the
SATA card the OP could easily have OTHER devices
that are currently working fine, begin misbehaving in
addition to the slower but more costly new drive inclusion.

And the user may well find it makes no difference.

In short, paying more to use a SATA card
when it ends up SLOWER is madness.

That is just plain wrong if you cant even pick the slower in a
proper double blind trial. It makes much more sense to get
the SATA drive so your choice of new system isnt constrained.

Nobody every concluded it wouldn't be possible.

No one ever said that.

It "might" not be possible, I did play devil's advocate for a
moment previously, but ultimately the only evidence is that
it WILL be slower, and that plenty of people DID NOTICE.

NOT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONFIG BEING DISCUSSED THEY DIDNT.

There are hundreds of thousands of search engine hits... not
just some random keywords that happened to show up on the
same page, but specficially about the Via PCI issue and it's
manifestation when using addon PCI cards like drive controllers.

WHERE IN THE WORLD WERE YOU DURING THIS ERA??
It was common knowledge.

AND YOU WILL FIND THAT I MADE SOME
COMMENTS ON THAT DURING THAT ERA.

chrisv wrote
Rod Speed wrote
chrisv wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have 2 systems with two PCI PATA cards in them
currently. Cables are quite manageable if one merely
chooses the right length of cable, rounded if desirable.

No thanks, I'm not stupid enough to flout the ATA standard.

You dont need to with SATA.

You ignore his point that cables are quite manageable.

No I didnt. And I was JUST commenting on how likely it is
that anyone WILL BOTHER TO DEVELOPE A PCI Express
RAID card for PATA drives due to the cable mess WITH THOSE.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way
out of your predicament better than that, Ron.

Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all, either.

The above shows that you clearly ignored the real
issue, that PATA cables are quite manageable,

Like hell it does ON THE LENGTH OF THE CABLE
AND STILL STAY WITHIN THE ATA STANDARD.

and proceeded to rant about round PATA cables.

I clearly didnt, you pathological liar.

Period. Even with flat PATA cables.

Wrong, as always.

Ridiculous and false claim noted.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

People have been managing PATA cables for years, Ron.

And plenty with a clue prefer to use SATA standard cables
instead of PATA cables that flout the ATA standard, ****wit.

kony wrote
Ed Light wrote

So with a pci card could he still make 20 Mb/S?
That would be ok until he upgraded his motherboard.

IF he didn't mind paying more for lower performance, ok.

Paying peanuts more in fact.

It still doesn't resolve the other issues though,
for example his sound may not work properly
anymore, or some other device on the PCI bus.

And may work fine too.

"Maybe" some PCI latency changes can fix it,
but WHY would someone pay more to do this?

SO THEIR CHOICES ARENT CONTRAINED IN ANY WAY
WHEN THEY COME TO BUY THE NEW SYSTEM, STUPID.

Are we certain he is planning on pulling this drive out at some later
date and using it as the main boot drive on the next new system?

Yes, he said that in his original post.

It could help to know if this is the top priority above all
else, and how long it will be until that next system purchase.

He wont necessarily know how long, depends
on what turns up thats good value etc.

If the next system purchase wouldn't be far off,
it could make more sense to go ahead and buy
it rather than spending on a PCI SATA card.

He's clearly decided not to do that.

And a PCI SATA card costs peanuts from the right place.

if the next system purchase is a couple years or more
away, it may not make sense to reuse the drive as the
main boot/os drive later as right now we have a big
shift in the industry to perpendicular recording and that
may change performance a lot in the next couple years,

Bet it wont. And it would make a lot more sense to
spend peanuts on the PCI SATA card in case it doesnt.

especially combined with the next-generation of
drives with giant flash memory caches on them.

You dont even know that he is interested in that class of drive either.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
kony wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote

THEN the PATA card is bought, and possibly then
in PCI Express format which is a further benefit.

They aren't available now, so why would they be available then.
If you hadn't noticed, PCI IDE is being phased out now already.

PCI express cards are still being developed,

Nope, there's plenty of SATA PCIe cards around. Just no IDE ones.

There are a few, but "plenty"? I don't think so. Having a
select few cards for a given function is hardly a market
saturation. I am confident there will be multiple times as
many PCI Express cards available in the next few years.

Bet there will be **** all PCI Express RAID cards for PATA drives.

We don't know that for certain,

Thats why I used the word BET.

even if you don't assume as I do that there will be some.

What you have also ignored is that boards STILL HAVE PCI SLOTS.

You dont know that they will when he buys his new system, or that
it wont make sense to buy one that doesnt when he buys one either.

All the conditions you presuppose in order to make your argument
for SATA, when combined together become incredibly unrealistic.

Wrong, as always.

Folkert Rienstra wrote:

"Daniel James" wrote in message

In article , Rod Speed wrote:

AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE DVD BURNER.

SATA DVD-writers are available from several makers, certainly from Plextor,
Samsung, and MSI. They seem to be typically around 75% more expensive than
the equivalent PATA device; but that will change, I'm sure.


In a hypothetical future system with only one PATA connection the DVD
is likely to be SATA, so that PATA connection will be free.


In the same hypothetical future system with the DVD likely to be SATA
the PATA connection will be gone.


Nobody is claiming that SATA doesn't have a slight technical advantage,


Merrill P. Troll does.

Numbers speak for themselves. But since you're too young to be
literate, get your mommy to read the report and tell you what the big
words mean. Here, maybe this will help:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/2005/09/27/round/


Now run on home and tell your daddy to get off of your mommy long enough
for her to set you right.