[Tig] removable storage disks / SATA

Ramona Howard ramona at spectsoft.com
Tue Jul 24 00:00:52 BST 2007

Hey Bob :)

> But more often than not.  SATA is for cost-reduced, or 2nd tier storage. 

I don't think this is the case anymore, it's being put to work at all levels.  
The interface allows for better thruput and with the drive manufactures 
embracing it over SCSI you have seen the trend for many other manufactures to 
also go this route and to make it better. The cost reduction is just the 
result of wide use.

A good example of this is controller manufactures doubling their thruput for 
SATA in less than a year.

> Somehow I don't believe that the innards of these drives are "equivalent".

They're not (sorta), that's part of the point, guess I didn't say that very 
well before. A $80 SATA drive and a $150 SATA drive are very different but 
the same SATA drives could be viewed equal because they are defined as SATA 
and use the same components and may try to be used equally.

> When I last purchased a SATA drive (from Seagate) I decided to pay the extra 
$15 premium in order to purchase the model with "enterprise" in its name  
(their top of the line SATA drive).  It is not clear if there was actually 
any physical difference. 

Physically, probably not as they all probably came from the same batch (the 
silicon can produce two different results from the same attempt)

An example of this and this is where it helps to have the model info so you 
can do your research.

WD makes both a YS and a ABYS Raid Edition drive, both Enterprise and both 
would probably work just fine (we use the YS) but this will put things into 
perspective a little.

The YS has a 8.9ml seek time with sustain thruput of 70mbs
The ABYS has a 8.7mil seek time with a sustained thruput of 61mbs

from the outsider they are both SATA 7200rpm Enterprise drives but from our 
perspective very different (because of performance) but in reality they were 
probably produced in the same group.  That's what I was trying to say.

Even though the components are the same you can see the difference.

YS drives also stack up to the reliability and performance of the WD SCSI 
drives from years past which is why we moved from SCSI.

> This is bad advice.  Depending on the type of underying device, solid state 
drives only support an average of 10K to 100K writes (depending on 
underylying technology) before they are expected to fail.  Solid state drives 
wear out!

You said it:
Depending on the type of underlying device.
I agree:
You must know how part A effects part B to get adequate results.

Anything will wear out..... but if we are talking only for a transport medium, 
which I think was the major issue in this thread, I am not talking about a 
recording medium in the sense of direct to disk recording, like what we do 
that's a whole different discussion.

Solid State will not lend to the same mechanical failure of a drive with 
moving parts which is a huge benefit for transport. I would not 
under-estimate the direction that solid state is going, remember it also has 
been around for a long time and since it fits into the consumer market very 
well you will see higher-end markets take benefit of that. Look at how far 
and fast compact flash has come.

Again, Solid State is a broad term much like SATA and offers a wide range in 
what it offers and not all is created equal. Some of it works far better than 
others so do your research.

As always a blast chatting with you.


Ramona Howard

SpectSoft, LLC
593 Hi-Tech Parkway Suite B
Oakdale, CA 95361
Phone: 209.847.7812 extension 104
Fax: 209.847.7859

RaveHD - Changing the way you think about HD

More information about the Tig mailing list