SATA-II explained

locutus12 said:
its a DM10 i believe and the drives use is a main drive, used for strage and file transfere, on avg i shift 20 to 40gb a day around.
Click to expand...
Hmm, those DM10's have had bad problems on nF4 boards and reliability is an issue. Go for it if a good price but keep regular backups ;).
 
its not that great a price to be honest... £65 second hand, and i have never trusted maxtor drives as in ten years the only drives ive owned or worked with that have failed have ALWAYS been blooming maxtors :(

also my board uses the ULI chipset which are manufactured by Nvidia these days. plus maxtors seem to dislike being put in systems with seagates at times... (is this just me or have others found this??? )

so basically even if i went to all the trouble to raid the 2 120`s i wouldnt gain anything? :(


just to throw in another option, i could get a western digital SATA2 200GB 8mb cache for £51 but as ive never used them i dont know about reliabillity or pricing...
 
Last edited:
Btw a mate has found that the geometry between the Maxtor 300GB DM10 SATA 1 and SATA 2 versions is different. The result is a different drive size. Only by a small amount but it ment that he couldn't use the SATA2 in a RAID5 array of the SATA1 previous version of the same drive.
 
Smids...

Referring back to my earlier question about raid0 with 4 drives etc.

I was just thinking that I might go for 2 x deskstars in raid0 and just have 1 large volume for storage. I know I won't be able to mirror but I transfer my important stuff regularly now anyway cos I tend to be one of those people who re-formats every 2 months.

Am I right in thinking this still takes advantage of the speed, but just not the reliability of adding raid1 for mirroring.
 
Yeah, you are right. You'll get all the speed (actually faster due to RAID1 killing writes). You can still RAID1 the storage drive though separately ;).
 
Tommy B said:
I still don't see what the benefit is?

My new WD Caviar 16MB Cache HD is running in Sata 2 mode. And what is the difference between LBA anc CHS, which is better?
Click to expand...
There isn't much unless you run a RAID type array where you can saturate the bandwidth. I think SATA-II is unfairly labelled as the 300MB/s bandwidth only though, when in actual fact the SATA-II standard brings a lot of features with it (though whether they are implement by manufacturers is another matter).

LBA and CHS - not great on those, but I know I cannot boot with CHS on my board. I leave it on Auto and it all works fine.
 
Hi, er... ok... tried to follow most of that but need some clarity

I'm just finishing buying the parts for a my first complete build (wish me luck lol), and i have chosen an Asrock 939Dual-Sata2 mobo, and have got to the HD selection. Now i was going to get a SATA2 drive, but now i just dont know. From what i've read in this thread i make it that if i were to buy two (seagate 160Gb 8Mb lets say) drives, both identical except one is SATA the other SATA2, then i would find no improvement in performance?

If not slightly frustrating, as part (a small part) of my mobo buying decision was that SATA2 was going to offer me more performance, but then that leads to my second question....

If there is a difference in performance, would i still be better of getting a drive with 16Mb buffer? or the SATA2? Im not at all interested in RAID array's or anything like that, as im trying to keep it simple for my first build ;)

Hope someone can help!
 
Hi, Welcome to the forums :),

Right, onto business - basically there will be no difference between the two. Bust will be higher on a 300MB/s enabled SATA2 drive but for drives like Seagates, seeing as all have had NCQ since the 7200.7, there is will be no difference between a SATA1 and SATA-II drive. SATA-II drives *might* have 1-2MB/s higher average read due to higher bursts which raise the average but that is about it. Still, I advise to get a SATA-II drive as they do have more features often.

I would agree with you, that a 16MB cache is probably more beneficial for a single drive user than an 8MB and would suggest this as your drive. I would have a look at the Seagate 7200.9 250GB 16MB cache drive - this seems like a good bet - SATA-II, 3.0gbp/s, NCQ (one of the best command queuing chips of all manufacturers), 16MB cache.

Also, on a cost per GB ratio, I believe 200GB upwards is the way to go now.
 
Can I mix a SATA-II drive with an older SATA drive to create a RAID 0 volume? My mobo-controller only supports the original standard and I've bought an updated SATA-II version of the drive that I already have (a 160gb Maxtor).

Also, would this destroy the contents of the original drive? Would Windows XP (being the evil pig-dog that it is) require reinstallation anyway?

TIA!
 
[HB]Rugrat said:
Can I mix a SATA-II drive with an older SATA drive to create a RAID 0 volume? My mobo-controller only supports the original standard and I've bought an updated SATA-II version of the drive that I already have (a 160gb Maxtor).

Also, would this destroy the contents of the original drive? Would Windows XP (being the evil pig-dog that it is) require reinstallation anyway?

TIA!
Click to expand...
You can so long as you limit force 150MB/s external if the SATA-II is a 300MB/s drive. Creating any RAID0 will destroy all data and require a reinstallation.
 
[HB]Rugrat said:
Bum, I was afraid of that... will it make much of a difference for gaming? (BF2 primarily).

Thanks for your advice smids :)
Click to expand...
Only in map loading. Yes it would be faster, but just for map loading - so the question is, is it worth it?

Also, despite them being 'able' to RAID0, I seriously advie the use of 2 identical disks. RAID0 is prone enough as it is with two identical drives to failure but with completely different generation drives, the chance of say data corruption etc is greater or possible other issues. The controller will see them as just 2 xxxGB capacity drives but there will be differences in times to read or write between them.
 
smids said:
Right, onto business - basically there will be no difference between the two. Bust will be higher on a 300MB/s enabled SATA2 drive but for drives like Seagates, seeing as all have had NCQ since the 7200.7, there is will be no difference between a SATA1 and SATA-II drive. SATA-II drives *might* have 1-2MB/s higher average read due to higher bursts which raise the average but that is about it. Still, I advise to get a SATA-II drive as they do have more features often.

I would agree with you, that a 16MB cache is probably more beneficial for a single drive user than an 8MB and would suggest this as your drive. I would have a look at the Seagate 7200.9 250GB 16MB cache drive - this seems like a good bet - SATA-II, 3.0gbp/s, NCQ (one of the best command queuing chips of all manufacturers), 16MB cache.
Click to expand...

Thanks smids!!! top quality info there! Then thats the one i shall get, just found it, not a bad price either! Just one other thing, other than a hard drive im good to go, is it possible to turn the PC on without a harddrive installed, just to check everything is working? and to take a peek at the bios?

Obviously i dont want to damage anything! lol
 
Last edited:
Foehammer2003 said:
Thanks smids!!! top quality info there! Then thats the one i shall get. Just one other thing, other than a hard drive im good to go, is it possible to turn the PC on without a harddrive installed, just to check everything is working? and to take a peek at the bios?

Obviously i dont want to damage anything! lol
Click to expand...
Yes, you can turn you PC on without a HD and go into BIOS :).
 
Last edited:
amdhappy said:
Thanks for the sticky, that has cleared up many questions I wanted to ask! :)
Click to expand...
Heh, no problems - if you have any questions not covered, please ask in here and if in general interest, will be added to the sticky :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom