Karl Larsen wrote:
Well today with hdparm I learned what I should have guessed. The
difference in data flow is not enough to even think about. I paid
$70.00 for my SATA and it is just not what I had hoped for. It is just
a newer design of the old IDE and not much faster. I will use it but
not for anything but another kind of thing. Maybe F9.
This should not have come as a surprise. There is no magic in the world
and there's no magic in the machines. If the speeds of the vanilla SATA
were significantly higher than IDE, everyone would've switched already
instead of drooling over solid state drives.
But the thing is, SATA is only one of the methods for letting the
computer communicate with the hard drive. The method might be more
efficient than IDE, but the HD itself is still as slow as it was before.
I *suspect* you might see a big difference between using 2 HDs
simultaneously on 2 channels of a single IDE controller vs. 2 sata
channels... In other words, copying data from HD1 to HD2 should be
faster with SATA drives as they're independent of each other (while
master/slave IDE devices "lock" the bus and only one can talk at any
given time). So, if you're setting up RAID, you either go with
SATA+software RAID or IDE + hardware RAID controller (if SCSI is not in
the picture, etc.). I could be wrong though.
There are also other considerations.. like improving the airflow inside
the computer case - SATA cables seem to be naturally better suited for that.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
