On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, [ISO-8859-1] João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote:
What is the practical diference? Performance?
I don't know how much of it to believe, since it is marketing material, but the Seagate white paper on their site claims that all the command-queueing stuff brings the performance very close to that of scsi.
This last weekend I put together a box with a 3Ware SATA RAID controller and two of the Seagate drives. The controller is probably a bit of a bottleneck, but that sucker was still incredibly fast for the price (about $300 for the controller, $100 for for each of the two Seagate 160GB drives). At $2 per mirrored gigabyte, I'm not complaining.
Charles
FUJISHIMA Satsuki wrote:Currently native SATA drives are still not so popular. There are: Seagate Barracuda ATA V, 7200.7, 7200.8 Maxtor DiamondMax10, MaXLineIII Fujitsu MHT20xxBH(2.5 inch) Any other drives (as far as I know, of course) are ATA drive with serial-parallel bridge.
At Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:36:43 -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
Is there anyone compiling a list of "fake" vs. "real" SATA drives? The difference being "fake" drives with ATA-100 electronics and an SATA to ATA conversion chip vs. drives that really support SATA natively?_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
