SATA 300 ==> 3Gb/s?

[k0nigen]

Are there actually any drives available that offer this speed?

A friend ordered a Maxtor "SATAII" and it turned out to have a "SATAII" feature of NCQ and not actually support 3Gb/s transfer rates

Input por favor

Gracias

[Xaar]

no drive can achieve that speed

[k0nigen]

no drive can achieve that speed

Does anybody have access to any useful information regarding this?

I'm interested to find out more - ie: what the limitations are

[mike_w]

It's the physical limitation of the drive itself. Transfer speeds may be able to go up to those speeds, but the drive simply cannot read/write that fast. An ordinary drive, like a Seagate Barracuda, probably won't make full use of IDE133.

[herulach]

How fast the drives can spin mainly, even a 15k drive would struggle to saturate a 1.5Gbps link, never mind a 3Gbps. Maybe burst speed (ie if something was in the drive cache, but youd get a max of 16mb of data that way).

Also, SATA 2 does not exist, never has, never will, theres NCQ and theres SATA 3GBps.

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

[k0nigen]

How fast the drives can spin mainly, even a 15k drive would struggle to saturate a 1.5Gbps link, never mind a 3Gbps. Maybe burst speed (ie if something was in the drive cache, but youd get a max of 16mb of data that way).

Also, SATA 2 does not exist, never has, never will, theres NCQ and theres SATA 3GBps.

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

Sure chief, I called it SATAII as that's what Scan advertised it as

Cheers for the info guys

[herulach]

Sure chief, I called it SATAII as that's what Scan advertised it as

Cheers for the info guys

Just because you call it that doesnt mean it exists as a standard. SATA 2 is something that basically manufacturers have started to put on stuff before a standard was set, and they all use it to mean different things. Read the link.

[k0nigen]

Just because you call it that doesnt mean it exists as a standard. SATA 2 is something that basically manufacturers have started to put on stuff before a standard was set, and they all use it to mean different things. Read the link.

Dude, read my first post and also the title of this thread - I said that my friend bought a "SATAII" drive. I didn't want to say he bought a SATA300 drive as it clearly isn't

[herulach]

Dude, read my first post and also the title of this thread - I said that my friend bought a "SATAII" drive. I didn't want to say he bought a SATA300 drive as it clearly isn't

I read the post, did you read mine? You might want to note that as well as pointing out the fact that SATA II is not in fact, a standard, and therefore bitching about whether or not it supports various features of a non existant standard is frankly rather daft, I did actually answer your question. I thought you might you want to educate yourself a bit more about SATA standards to prevent something similar happening in the future and hence posted the link, no need to get so confrontational about it.

[k0nigen]

You don't have to prove anything to me
I think you're going a little overboard on this one

I hope we both have better things to do than chatting on here about whether SATA2 exists and what it entails

[herulach]

You don't have to prove anything to me
I think you're going a little overboard on this one

I hope we both have better things to do than chatting on here about whether SATA2 exists and what it entails

Meh, im supposed to be revising, so any excuse not to really

[StormPC]

SATAII is called SATA300 by many because it was thought to be 300MB/s max, and because SATA150 was thought to be 150MB/s max. Also, SATA II definitely exists, but only because the retailers and e-tailers are not very bright and love to jump the gun and coin new phrases for technologies they do not understand. Another example of this is the "non-interlaced monitors" which were sold for many years. In this case however, it was not a lie. They really were non-interlaced. The problem is, they used the term as if there was such a thing as an interlaced monitor, which THERE NEVER WAS.

The only caution I would give is that SATAII/SATA300 or SATA 3Gb/s is that it is totally useless. It means absolutely nothing, because as mentioned earlier, the limitations of SATA150 have nothing to do with the transfer rate of the electronics. It's the mechanical limits of drive technology. So it is a bit of a marketing ploy.

Since SATA300 drives ARE NEWER, they tend to have better drive mechanics. Two SATA300 WD120JDs in RAID 0 will score about 100MB/s in Sandra, whereas a single Raptor 74GB will do about 60MB/s. Put two Raptors in RAID 0 however and they will score probably in the neighborhood of 120MB/s. SATA150 beats SATA300 in this case, because no matter which way you go (SATA150 or SATA300), drive mechanics is the limiting factor and not the electronics.

k0nigen,

Next time you want help you should ask your question and then shut up! Next time you want to pick a fight, PM me!