Talk:Serial ATA
|
|
| Contents |
Use of the SATA II name
According to this [1] (http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp) article SATA II does not mean 3gb/s. SATA II was the name of the consortium that developed SATA (they changed it to SATA-IO). Perhaps a change of the term SATA II to SATA 3Gb/s will avoid confusion.
Compatibility
Is Serial ATA (1) comptible to Serial ATA 2?
- Yes, SATA 2 is backwards compatible.
SATA II and daisy-chaining drives
To whom it may concern: see [2] (http://www.envynews.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1495.html) and the official SATA (II) standard specs. Mr. Jones 13:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rationale
Why does this exist?
- Because it's sufficiently similar to PATA that re-designs of drive electronics are relatively simple (I think).
Why is it better than Universal Serial Bus or SCSI or Firewire?
- Because the bandwidth of SATA, USB2 and Firewire are limited, so having a separate bus means that devices don't need to compete for it.
- Because the way in which data is shoveled to and from a hard disk is more specific than the ways in which it is shoveled to USB2 and Firewire devices, I think; rather like SCSI vs. IDE — the complexity is on the drives. Mr. Jones 21:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One sentence linking to an article on computer buses is best.
- Sorry, I don't understand. Mr. Jones 21:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge with ATA article?
- It may be appropriate at some point to merge this article with the one on ATA, but the subject probably deserves more than one sentence. —Mulad
- Not sure when the above was written, but the idea seems no longer appropriate, since SATA is going to be the absolutely normal standard within a year at the outside, and PATA will be the historical curiosity. Tempshill 22:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Capitalisation
Please use capitals properly, the Advanced_Technology_Attachment (ATA) bus must have the words capitalized, as it is a proper name.
Links to "bridge (computing)"
The link under "bridge" currently points to "bridge (computing)", which doesn't exist. It could be made to point to "bridge (disambiguation)#electronics and computers", but I'm not sure whether this is actually the same meaning of "bridge". Perhaps the meaning of "bridge" as used here is missing on that disambiguation page? Knowledgeable comments, anyone? Fpahl 14:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The thing it's most like is a network bridge, but it's not a network bridge. I'll remove the link for now. --Prodicus 01:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does Serial-ATA work together with IDE?
Is it possible to have a Serial ATA and and an IDE hard drive running in the same computer?
- Some (all that I've encountered) motherboards with SATA happily support both simultaneously. Mr. Jones 20:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If a computer donīt support to run Parall ATA and SATA at the same time you can also add a serial ata controller. (a pci card with a sata controller chip and (data) ports for devices)
Compatibility
I think something needs to be said about the compatibility of SATA with major operating systems. I'm using a SATA drive now, but have less than fond memories of coaxing Windows XP to install on it. If such a relatively new OS requires a floppy disk's-worth of 3rd party drivers to work with the thing, I'm sure there are lots of problems with SATA and other OSes. T.P.K. 07:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There's no problem with SATA under Linux per-se (apart from the obscure location in the menuconfig; it's in a little section under SCSI, and you need to turn less stable kernel components on, if you're looking for it): install a 2.6 kernel, configure it correctly, compile and install it, edit modules.conf, reboot, done. You could even install a packaged binary version. However, installing from CD is not trivial with most Linux distributions (but not all, I daresay). Knoppix comes with a 2.6 kernel. Whether it supports SATA I'm not sure. Taking all distributions together, Linux is much more agile than Windows as an installable OS in a basic configuration. From another POV, it's just much more confusing :-) I suspect there will be a version of Linux that supports SATA out of the box before there's such a version of Windows. However, Windows will probably support it before all Linux distributions do. Mr. Jones 22:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The Linux situation as I understand it is simultaneously more complex and less pessimistic than that: Depending on your SATA chipset, the traditional drivers/ide ATA driver collection may more than suffice, because of either the programming interfaces' similarity to prior PATA chipsets, or recent improvements to drivers/ide code, or both. Or Jeff Garzik's libata collection, included in standard kernels since 2.4.27, may provide a better-suited driver. I try to track both sets and other options in my Using serial ATA with Linux (http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Hardware/sata.html) page, which I see is linked from the main article. Rick Moen 20:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comparison with SCSI would be nice
A comparison between advantages of SATA versus SCSI would be interesting and appropriate for this article (and could then be copied and pasted into the SCSI article), if some knowledgeable person would like to write it. Tempshill 22:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)