Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:34:50 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<001001c33418$1a5f2b90$0100a8c0@vasya> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
For anyone who is interested I ran across this comparison of SATA vs. SCSI
in 10K drives
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/10k-comparo/index.x?pg=1
Brad Loomis
Morro Bay, CA
-----Original Message-----
Jun Qian already made comments on this, but I can give you my own
experience. I have an Intel D845PEBT2 motherboard that has SATA RAID
controller on board. Since SATA drives were not yet shipping, I installed
two WD800JB drives with a pair of Iwill SATA to ATA adaptors. Intel uses a
Silicon Image controller and provides drivers by SI. However, these drivers
are NOT Microsoft certified. They work fine, though, on my XP system and I
have had no problems. My system boots from the RAID 0 setup, and disk speed
seems to be quite good compared to regular (non RAID) ATA interface. I did
run tests on it, and the speed of the SATA RAID was about twice that of the
ATA drive, and also quite a bit faster than an SCSI drive. I have not tested
the SATA vs. ATA without RAID.
I don't know if it is worth going to SATA just for SATA sake. In my case, I
wanted to run RAID 0 and it is available on the motherboard only through the
SATA interface.
Peter
-----------------------------------------------
PCBUILD's List Owners:
Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>
|
|
|