SATA link up 1.5 Gbps - Storage

This is a discussion on SATA link up 1.5 Gbps - Storage ; ~ I am eyeing this WD SATA harddrive with (maximal) trnasfer rates of 3 Gb/s: ~ Western Digital WD6400AAKS WD Caviar SE16 SATA Internal Hard Drive, 640 GB, 3 Gb/s, 16 MB Cache, 7200 RPM ~ http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=394 ~ but I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

  1. SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    ~
    I am eyeing this WD SATA harddrive with (maximal) trnasfer rates of 3 Gb/s:
    ~
    Western Digital WD6400AAKS WD Caviar SE16 SATA Internal Hard Drive, 640 GB,
    3 Gb/s, 16 MB Cache, 7200 RPM
    ~
    http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=394
    ~
    but I don't know if the combination of (processor + IO subsystem + BIOS) I
    have (running on 1 GB of RAM)
    ~
    sh-3.1# dmesg | grep Athlon
    CPU0: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ stepping 02
    powernow-k8: Found 1 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ processors (version
    2.00.00)
    ~
    supports 3 Gbps data transfers
    ~
    Does it?
    ~
    // __ Here more about my underlying hardware
    ~
    sh-3.1# dmesg | grep ata
    Loading iSCSI transport class v2.0-724.<7>sata_sil 0000:00:12.0: version 2.0
    ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF8804080 ctl 0xF880408A bmdma 0xF8804000 irq
    17
    ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF88040C0 ctl 0xF88040CA bmdma 0xF8804008 irq
    17
    scsi0 : sata_sil
    ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
    ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 156301488 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
    ata1.00: ata1: dev 0 multi count 16
    ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
    scsi1 : sata_sil
    ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
    ~
    sh-3.1# dmesg | grep ATA
    hda: HL-DT-ST RW/DVD GCC-4482B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
    hda: ATAPI 48X DVD-ROM CD-R/RW drive, 1536kB Cache
    ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF8804080 ctl 0xF880408A bmdma 0xF8804000 irq
    17
    ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF88040C0 ctl 0xF88040CA bmdma 0xF8804008 irq
    17
    ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
    ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 156301488 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
    ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
    scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA ST3808110AS 3.AA PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
    ~
    Thanks
    lbrtchx


  2. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    > ~
    > I am eyeing this WD SATA harddrive with (maximal) trnasfer rates of 3 Gb/s:
    > ~
    > Western Digital WD6400AAKS WD Caviar SE16 SATA Internal Hard Drive, 640 GB,
    > 3 Gb/s, 16 MB Cache, 7200 RPM
    > ~
    > http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=394
    > ~
    > but I don't know if the combination of (processor + IO subsystem + BIOS) I
    > have (running on 1 GB of RAM)
    > ~
    > sh-3.1# dmesg | grep Athlon
    > CPU0: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ stepping 02
    > powernow-k8: Found 1 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ processors (version
    > 2.00.00)
    > ~
    > supports 3 Gbps data transfers
    > ~
    > Does it?



    I think it does, but it matters very little. You will not get any
    perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB. The one advantage at this time
    is better compatibility, and with WDs shoddy SATA protocol
    implementation, this may be an issue.

    Arno


    > ~
    > // __ Here more about my underlying hardware
    > ~
    > sh-3.1# dmesg | grep ata
    > Loading iSCSI transport class v2.0-724.<7>sata_sil 0000:00:12.0: version 2.0
    > ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF8804080 ctl 0xF880408A bmdma 0xF8804000 irq
    > 17
    > ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF88040C0 ctl 0xF88040CA bmdma 0xF8804008 irq
    > 17
    > scsi0 : sata_sil
    > ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
    > ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 156301488 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
    > ata1.00: ata1: dev 0 multi count 16
    > ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
    > scsi1 : sata_sil
    > ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
    > ~
    > sh-3.1# dmesg | grep ATA
    > hda: HL-DT-ST RW/DVD GCC-4482B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
    > hda: ATAPI 48X DVD-ROM CD-R/RW drive, 1536kB Cache
    > ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF8804080 ctl 0xF880408A bmdma 0xF8804000 irq
    > 17
    > ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF88040C0 ctl 0xF88040CA bmdma 0xF8804008 irq
    > 17
    > ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
    > ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 156301488 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
    > ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
    > scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA ST3808110AS 3.AA PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
    > ~
    > Thanks
    > lbrtchx



  3. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > I think it does, but it matters very little. You will not get any
    > perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB. The one advantage at this time
    > is better compatibility, and with WDs shoddy SATA protocol
    > implementation, this may be an issue.
    >
    > Arno

    ~
    Hmm! Arno, you say "it matters very little. You will not get any
    perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB" without saying why ;-)
    ~
    Which combination of (Motherboard + I/O subsystem + BIOS + (?)) will let
    you have your cake and eat it too?
    ~
    Also, which manufacturers have more useful SATA, S.M.A.R.T, TLRE, . . .
    implementations so that you may better predict when drives are about to
    fail and possibly the physical reasons why
    ~
    I am thinking of implementing RAID 5 using a Linux (or BSD) software-based
    RAID any good best practices out there?
    ~
    thanx
    lbrtchx



  4. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> I think it does, but it matters very little. You will not get any
    >> perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB. The one advantage at this time
    >> is better compatibility, and with WDs shoddy SATA protocol
    >> implementation, this may be an issue.
    >>
    >> Arno

    > ~
    > Hmm! Arno, you say "it matters very little. You will not get any
    > perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB" without saying why ;-)


    Why would you get a speed-up? This is the interface speed, not the
    drive speed. Drive speed is much lower.

    > ~
    > Which combination of (Motherboard + I/O subsystem + BIOS + (?)) will let
    > you have your cake and eat it too?


    None.

    > ~
    > Also, which manufacturers have more useful SATA, S.M.A.R.T, TLRE, . . .
    > implementations so that you may better predict when drives are about to
    > fail and possibly the physical reasons why


    You need to interpret yourself for that. Basically they are all
    usable. Seagate makes pretty bad drives at the moment. WD has
    compatibility issues in the Interface. Maxtor still sucks.
    Get Samsung or Hitachi.

    > ~ I am thinking of implementing RAID 5 using a Linux (or BSD)
    > software-based RAID any good best practices out there?


    Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.

    Arno

  5. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    > Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    > bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    > to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    > (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    > particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.
    >
    > Arno


    I am sorry, but I am not a hw person. Should I use an attached PCI-Express
    card to plug the SATA drives to, even if I a using software-based RAID?

    From this "infomercial"

    http://www.sci-worx.com/docs/SiI-WP-006-A.pdf

    In which they seem to be talking about their external storage which is
    connected to a notebook through some PCMCIA card, I read that the highest
    data transfer (twice as fast?) can be achieve with SATA drives anyway.
    Would you trust these benchmarks? (there is a small chart)

    An Internal SATA array should work most faster I guess (maybe wrongly ;-))

    Also I have another question for you that generally relates to the prev one

    How "possible" (or "unnecessary", . . .) is this?

    1) go: http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.general/topics

    2) then search for "HA best pratices with postgreSQL"

    (links get corrupted sometimes)

    thanks again
    lbrtchx

  6. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    >> Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    >> bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    >> to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    >> (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    >> particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.
    >>
    >> Arno


    > I am sorry, but I am not a hw person. Should I use an attached
    > PCI-Express card to plug the SATA drives to, even if I a using
    > software-based RAID?


    In Software RAID all data goes over the sytem bus and it
    becomes the main bottleneck. Therefore you want the fastest
    bus you can reasonably get.

    > From this "infomercial"


    > http://www.sci-worx.com/docs/SiI-WP-006-A.pdf


    > In which they seem to be talking about their external storage which
    > is connected to a notebook through some PCMCIA card, I read that the
    > highest data transfer (twice as fast?) can be achieve with SATA
    > drives anyway. Would you trust these benchmarks? (there is a small
    > chart)


    USB does limit access speeds to about 25MB/s in practive. SATA
    gives you native speed, they are correct about that. THis
    works only if the adapter card is connectedd to a fast enough
    bus. An express card would typically do.

    > An Internal SATA array should work most faster I guess (maybe
    > wrongly ;-))


    > Also I have another question for you that generally relates to the
    > prev one


    > How "possible" (or "unnecessary", . . .) is this?


    > 1) go: http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.general/topics


    > 2) then search for "HA best pratices with postgreSQL"


    > (links get corrupted sometimes)


    I am not a database expert.

    Arno

  7. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    > Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    > bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    > to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    > (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    > particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.
    >
    > Arno


    Also, based on

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths

    you could "theoretically" connect some 20 Serial ATA (SATA-300)
    transferring data via the computer bus at 375 MB/s to one PCI Express 2.0
    (x16 link) card handling data transfers of 8000 MB/s

    So, if mmobos come only with 1 PCI Express slot and SATA ports can be
    connected to only one SATA drive, why is it you mostly (only?) see PCI
    Express to Serial ATA II controllers with 1 or 2 SATA II ports?

    I would love to see a PCI Express 2.0 (x16 link) with 6 or 8 SATA II ports!

    thanks
    lbrtchx


  8. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Hi!

    Albretch Mueller wrote:
    >> Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    >> bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    >> to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    >> (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    >> particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.

    >
    > Also, based on
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths
    >
    > you could "theoretically" connect some 20 Serial ATA (SATA-300)
    > transferring data via the computer bus at 375 MB/s to one PCI Express 2.0
    > (x16 link) card handling data transfers of 8000 MB/s
    >
    > So, if mmobos come only with 1 PCI Express slot and SATA ports can be
    > connected to only one SATA drive, why is it you mostly (only?) see PCI
    > Express to Serial ATA II controllers with 1 or 2 SATA II ports?
    >
    > I would love to see a PCI Express 2.0 (x16 link) with 6 or 8 SATA II ports!


    Why? 2.0 16x?

    If you need so many disk drives, first of all, you'll never mount them
    in only one desktop (or even server) case. On the other hand, so many
    disk drives will be in RAID arrays, not standalone. Also, it is almost
    impossible to imagine system who needs to write simultaneously on 20
    different drives. In those cases SAN, NAS or DAS systems will be much
    preffered solution.

    If you need SATA controller with more than two SATA connectors, you have
    a plenty of them. Adaptec, AOC (3ware), LSI and some others are
    producing those controllers (usually SAS/SATA), and they are working
    perfectly.

    With best regards,

    Iggy

  9. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    >> Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    >> bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    >> to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    >> (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    >> particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.
    >>
    >> Arno


    > Also, based on


    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths


    > you could "theoretically" connect some 20 Serial ATA (SATA-300)
    > transferring data via the computer bus at 375 MB/s to one PCI Express 2.0
    > (x16 link) card handling data transfers of 8000 MB/s


    > So, if mmobos come only with 1 PCI Express slot and SATA ports can be
    > connected to only one SATA drive, why is it you mostly (only?) see PCI
    > Express to Serial ATA II controllers with 1 or 2 SATA II ports?


    One thing is that these card typically use an 1x PCI-E slot.
    The x16 slot is used for the graphics card (but can be used for
    other cards, the slots are downward compatible to less lanes).
    The controller with the most PCI-E lanes I have seen so far was
    24 drive hardware RAID conrtroller from Arcea or 2ware (don't
    remember) and it used 8 PCI-E lanes.

    > I would love to see a PCI Express 2.0 (x16 link) with 6 or 8 SATA II
    > ports!


    Complete overkill! A PCI-E 2.0 lane kann transfer 500MB/s.
    The fastest SATA II drives get around 100MB/s. So even for
    8 drives, a 2x PCI-E slot would be quite enough. (2x slots
    do not exist, but there are 4x slots with only 2 lanes
    connected. The standard allows this.)

    Arno

  10. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Igor Batinic <_ime_._prezime_@email.htnet.hr> wrote:
    > Hi!


    > Albretch Mueller wrote:
    >>> Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    >>> bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    >>> to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    >>> (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    >>> particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.

    >>
    >> Also, based on
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths
    >>
    >> you could "theoretically" connect some 20 Serial ATA (SATA-300)
    >> transferring data via the computer bus at 375 MB/s to one PCI Express 2.0
    >> (x16 link) card handling data transfers of 8000 MB/s
    >>
    >> So, if mmobos come only with 1 PCI Express slot and SATA ports can be
    >> connected to only one SATA drive, why is it you mostly (only?) see PCI
    >> Express to Serial ATA II controllers with 1 or 2 SATA II ports?
    >>
    >> I would love to see a PCI Express 2.0 (x16 link) with 6 or 8 SATA II ports!


    > Why? 2.0 16x?


    > If you need so many disk drives, first of all, you'll never mount them
    > in only one desktop (or even server) case. On the other hand, so many
    > disk drives will be in RAID arrays, not standalone. Also, it is almost
    > impossible to imagine system who needs to write simultaneously on 20
    > different drives. In those cases SAN, NAS or DAS systems will be much
    > preffered solution.


    Sorry, I have had an * disk and a 4 disk RAID array (software RAID)
    in one server. Thet is not the reason PCI-E 16x is inappropriate.
    The reason is that it has far, far too much bandwidth for 8 disks.

    > If you need SATA controller with more than two SATA connectors, you have
    > a plenty of them. Adaptec, AOC (3ware), LSI and some others are
    > producing those controllers (usually SAS/SATA), and they are working
    > perfectly.


    True. Just look a bit. Make sure your disks do not saturate
    the bus. For example, getting a PCI 4 port SATA controller
    would be a bad idea for hardware RAID, as 4 modern disks
    can saturate even an 270MB/s 66MHz PIC slot.

    Arno

  11. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    > If you need so many disk drives
    ~
    we were talking theoretically here based on the Math of throughput on each
    devide
    ~
    > If you need SATA controller with more than two SATA connectors, you have a

    plenty of them. Adaptec, AOC (3ware), LSI and some others are producing
    those controllers (usually SAS/SATA), and they are working perfectly.
    ~
    I was actually asking for SATA controller cards based on the PCI-Express
    interface
    ~
    I saw quite a few at newegg.com under:
    ~
    > Computer Hardware > Hard Drives > Controllers / RAID Cards

    ~
    However they were all either RAID cards or were designed for SAS external
    ports
    ~
    In the same way they have plain 4 port PCI Ultra ATA 133 IDE controller
    cards, I wonder why is it they don't have 8 port PCI-Express to SATA II
    ones
    ~
    regards
    lbrtchx


  12. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    [...]
    > I was actually asking for SATA controller cards based on the PCI-Express
    > interface
    > ~
    > I saw quite a few at newegg.com under:
    > ~
    > > Computer Hardware > Hard Drives > Controllers / RAID Cards

    > ~
    > However they were all either RAID cards or were designed for SAS external
    > ports
    > ~
    > In the same way they have plain 4 port PCI Ultra ATA 133 IDE controller
    > cards, I wonder why is it they don't have 8 port PCI-Express to SATA II
    > ones


    My guess would be that not enough people understand software RAID at
    the moment and hence the market is currently too small to create
    the PCI-E versions fast. In addition, many mainboards have a lot
    of SATA connectors today, that you can use for software RAID.
    Getting a board with 8 SATA interfaces that are fast enough to
    build 8 disk RAID arrays in software should be unproblematic.

    As to RAID controllers: It is expensive, but if you really want, you
    can typically configure all disks as "pass trough", "raw" or
    "unraided" and use them as ordinary controllers. You still need the
    correct drivers.

    As for SAS controllers, they can deal with SATA disks as well, but
    need an adapter (different connector).

    Arno




  13. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Hi!

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > Previously Igor Batinic <_ime_._prezime_@email.htnet.hr> wrote:
    >
    >> Why? 2.0 16x?

    >
    >> If you need so many disk drives, first of all, you'll never mount them
    >> in only one desktop (or even server) case. On the other hand, so many
    >> disk drives will be in RAID arrays, not standalone. Also, it is almost
    >> impossible to imagine system who needs to write simultaneously on 20
    >> different drives. In those cases SAN, NAS or DAS systems will be much
    >> preffered solution.

    >
    > Sorry, I have had an * disk and a 4 disk RAID array (software RAID)
    > in one server. Thet is not the reason PCI-E 16x is inappropriate.
    > The reason is that it has far, far too much bandwidth for 8 disks.


    Actually, I really don't see the reason why to use PCIe 16x. Most server
    systems and also HBA adapters are not using PCIe 16x simply because -
    it's not needed. )

    >> If you need SATA controller with more than two SATA connectors, you have
    >> a plenty of them. Adaptec, AOC (3ware), LSI and some others are
    >> producing those controllers (usually SAS/SATA), and they are working
    >> perfectly.

    >
    > True. Just look a bit. Make sure your disks do not saturate
    > the bus. For example, getting a PCI 4 port SATA controller
    > would be a bad idea for hardware RAID, as 4 modern disks
    > can saturate even an 270MB/s 66MHz PIC slot.


    That's normal. The only problem is using PCI bus for such a purpose.

    Best regards,

    Iggy

  14. Re: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps

    Arno Wagner wrote in news:6bunoiF3dme79U1@mid.individual.net
    > Previously Albretch Mueller wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > > I think it does, but it matters very little. You will not get any
    > > > perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB. The one advantage at this time
    > > > is better compatibility, and with WDs shoddy SATA protocol
    > > > implementation, this may be an issue.
    > > >
    > > > Arno

    > > ~
    > > Hmm! Arno, you say "it matters very little. You will not get any
    > > perceptable speed-up over 1.5GB" without saying why ;-)


    > Why would you get a speed-up? This is the interface speed, not the
    > drive speed.


    > Drive speed is much lower.


    Only slightly, Babblebot.

    >
    > > ~
    > > Which combination of (Motherboard + I/O subsystem + BIOS + (?)) will let
    > > you have your cake and eat it too?

    >
    > None.
    >
    > > ~
    > > Also, which manufacturers have more useful SATA, S.M.A.R.T, TLRE, . . .
    > > implementations so that you may better predict when drives are about to
    > > fail and possibly the physical reasons why

    >
    > You need to interpret yourself for that. Basically they are all
    > usable. Seagate makes pretty bad drives at the moment. WD has
    > compatibility issues in the Interface. Maxtor still sucks.
    > Get Samsung or Hitachi.
    >
    > > ~ I am thinking of implementing RAID 5 using a Linux (or BSD)
    > > software-based RAID any good best practices out there?

    >
    > Get a controller that is PCI-E attacjed, to acvoid the bus
    > bottleneck. Can be a board/chipset -integrated one. Make sure
    > to moditor the array (mdadm) and the SMART status of the disks
    > (smartd, look for pending secors and reallocated sectors in
    > particulsr) and make sure error notificatin by both tools work.
    >
    > Arno


+ Reply to Thread