>you're limited to one sata drive per channel
How did this piece of shit replace IDE?
SATA is also an order of magnitude faster than IDE.
Maybe because it's a lot faster?
It's also not Fuck huge, you could have like 4 SATA connectors in the space for 1 ide
>>55248487
But ide has more connectors? Could you not update the controller to increase bandwidth?
>>55248494
More like 2 sata for each ide, maybe 3.
But then you have more cables hanging around your pc.
>>55248510
>theres more cables, must be faster
You can still have as many hard discs connected via SATA as you did with IDE. Also 1.5 Gbit/s at least with first series SATA versus 133 Mbps with IDE at most. Trolling or not, don't be fucking stupid.
>>55248479
>colored stripe aligns with each pin 1
Holy shit how did I not know this.
Thinner cables better airflow.
>>55248687
We've stopped using p4 housefires gramps, airflow isn't that important anymore, as long as it's there
>>55248510
>More like 2 sata for each ide, maybe 3.
>But then you have more cables hanging around your pc.
IDE dimensions: 3.3mm x 35.88mm
SATA dimensions: 2.2mm x 8mm
(3.3x35.88)/(2.2x8) = 6.7275
You can have literally 6 connectors in the same space as as one IDE, and one of them is faster at the worst connection (sata 1 at 183MB/s) vs the best IDE (Ultra-ATA 133MB/s)
So that's twice the density at higher speeds. Serial connectors are also simpler to design, implement, and lay down traces for so it's cheaper too.
Also, smaller cables in general means better airflow and better ease-of-use. Could you imagine trying to place down 2 IDE cables in places where they won't block or reroute airflow so that you can connect your 4 drives?
>>55248749
Yeah but you can't Daisy chain sata.
IDE: 1
Sata: 0
>>55248764
Why would I want to when I can just put down the same number of connectors in a vastly smaller space for cheaper and they're also faster?
>>55248764
You fucking idiot.
>>55248821
What did I say?
>>55248730
Are you really this stupid...the easiest can flow through your case the less your intake and exhaust fans have to work making less noise. Now I waant saying better airflow is why SATA was developed and implemented I'm just saying it's a plus. Now go be retarted somewhere else...
>>55248479
only one IDE device can communicate on the bus at a time
also, sata port multipliers are a thing
both sata and ide is dead
>>55248976
Das gay tho
>>55249009
oh :(
>>55248944
IDE isn't daisy-chained, either
>>55249052
I'm calling your bluff.
Prove it.
>>55249173
One device can only talk at once on a parallel protocol.
They ain't daisy chained, they are sharing the leads, even if it was passthru, which would look like daisy chaining for someone who does not know better, it would not change a thing.
>>55249231
Then why don't they make sata cables like that?
>>55249173
daisy-chaining refers to the way things are physically connected, by connecting devices to other devices, in a line or ring
>>55248510
>>55248479
SATA is serial with higher frequency and bandwidth.
You could do it over PATA with a controller made for serial, but the amount of errors because of the IDE cable would slow it down to unusable speeds.
Instead they will probably release a new SATA specification soon with extra lanes and higher speeds for correct lanes.
SATA controllers are also easier on the CPU. PATA, ISA, all are old legacy technology.
>>55249244
You would have to share the cable, decreasing single drive bandwidth.
But there is SAS, which is sharing one cable and connector for many drives.
>>55249244
why isn't SATA daisy-chained?
presumably because hosts were getting fast enough to be able to handle multiple devices each at their full speed, which requires a star topology (like sata uses)
>>55249304
>multiple devices each at their full speed
should also add that device speeds were also increasing, making it harder to make a single host controller with enough bandwidth to satisfy several high-bandwidth devices
>>55248510
Do you not understand that IDE shares the data path among devices? Enjoy your 45MB/S SSDs
>>55249009
You're gay.
>>55249356
>ssd
Das gay tho
>>55249263
Sata is being superceded by u.2 which is designed for SSDs. However, it will still be around for a long time as it's ideal for hard drives.
>>55249463
Nah, they will keep developing the SATA protocol, U.2 ain't useful for servers.
There will probably be internal drives using the PCI-E bus, like Thunderbolt external drives.
>>55249463
>>55249493
M.2*
You mixed me up there too, I should go sleep.
SATA III - 6GB per second
IDE - 133mb per second
If you can't figure out why sata replaced IDE, you need a beating.
>>55249493
>U.2 ain't useful for servers.
Why not?
>>55249493
Server drives are typically smaller PCIe cards with edge connectors like your graphics card, see Intel P3x00. Some are using the new SFF-8639 adapter that does PCIe 3.0 over a port that is similar to the SAS/Sata shape. M.2 is also rated to do PCIe signals, but the limiting factor is typically storage capacity and thermal limits. You can get wierd form factors like a 110mmx22mm M.2 card, but those are less common and cloud/data operators usually request those as custom designs from known companies (eg intel, samsung, etc)
Source: SSD engineer for a big electronics company
>>55249565
Because hundreds terabytes of SSD storage is not a valuable option for most companies.
>>55249567
Yup, exactly what I was thinking.
>>55249590
Think it's because they just can't handle the workload without throttling.
>>55248479
Serial vs. Parallel.
SATA / SAS vs. IDE / SCSI
SATA / SAS is orders of magnitude better.
>>55249590
What is SSD caching...
>>55248764
But you can't have both devices talking at the same time on IDE.
IDE:1
SATA: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
SATA's score is relative to the number of bytes you will get off both drives in the time it takes to get one byte off the two IDE drives.
>>55249524
IDE ended at 167MB/s (1.333Gb/s)
SATA started at 1.5Gb/s (187.5MB/s)
so there wasn't much of a speed difference in the beginning
>>55248479
bait. almost fell for it.
>>55250316
So easy to infuriate the aspergers crowd
>>55250285
Though there were immediate benefits in multi drive systems.
I think SATA also achieve more of its designed bandwidth than IDE did as well.
>using cables
Every component of my PC communicates wirelessly with the CPU
>>55249254
I'm glad we don't have to deal with this shit any more.
I used to have a PCMCIA SCSI adapter for my Amiga and had like a scanner, a CD writer and an external hard drive all hooked up. Never worked properly.
>>55248487
>order of magnitude
my sources say it's actually 0.654 order of magnitude
>>55250285
My western digital black is Only ~150MB/s read and 130MB/s write.
Does this mean I wouldn't benefit from sata without an ssd?
>>55248479
I miss firewire.
Isn't IDE also called p-ata as opposed to s-ata (parallel and series)?
>>55250782
Yea.
Parallel master race yo
Why not just plug the HDD directly into the motherboard like a M.2 and ignore all the cables?
>>55250646
read & write throughput isn't the only benefit of an SSD
>>55250816
That's what laptops usually do.
>>55250829
But I'm talking about pata and sata
>>55250646
No, you still benefit from SATA.
Firstly, latency. SATA has far less latency than IDE did and hard drives have cache, so if the cache is hit then you get data from the drive faster than you would have if it were on IDE.
Secondly, as with pretty much all connections the standard was a theoretical limit that was almost never reached. I never got 150MB/s throughput on an IDE drive.
Thirdly, SATA has less overhead so in general.
Everyone saw a benefit from moving to SATA. Even optical drives eventually did.
>>55248976
>sata port multipliers
These are horrible AFAIK.
>>55250285
>>55248749
SATA uses 8b/10b encoding, so effectively each byte is 10 bits, so 1.5 Gigabits per second is 150 Megabytes per second, not 187.
>current year
>not SCSI masterrace
>>55252352
Why is SCSI still a thing?
>>55252502
because scuzzy is a funny name
>>55248764
You can daisy chain SAS.
>>55251617
They fucking are. Everything has to be 100% compatible or you get random dropping drives or drives not showing up at all.
I was fucking around with it last year and accessing each drive was fine but accessing both at once sort of bottlenecked the whole thing and only one drive would respond while the other was 100% active but never transfered a single byte until the other was finished.
>>55252502
Because it's fucking good?
>>55249565
>>55249590
>>55249801
With system memory becoming so cheap and available (Yes, even ECC) more and more companies are storing databases in memory and then using a slave to do the actual writing. No loss of performance in a production environment.
>Worked in a large datacenter until recently
>>55249254
The straight edges and same angles makes this image so goddamn comfy.
>>55254486
>straight edges and same angles
It's called an isometric drawing. It's a type of parallel projection.
>comfy
>>>/v/
