Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SATA 3.0 Release Paves the Way To 6Gb/sec Devices

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Data Storage 248

An anonymous reader writes "The Serial ATA International Organization (SATA-IO) has just released the new Serial ATA Revision 3.0 specification. With the new 3.0 specification, the path has been paved to enable future devices to transfer up to 6Gb/sec as well as provide enhancements to support multimedia applications. Like other SATA specifications, the 3.0 specification is backward compatible with earlier SATA products and devices. This makes it easy for motherboard manufactures to go ahead and upgrade to the new specification without having to worry about its customers' legacy SATA devices. This should make adoption of the new specification fast, like previous adoptions of SATA 2.0 (or 3Gb/sec) technology."

cancel ×

248 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bike, nigga stole my bike (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116503)

adddriaaaaaannnn

Re:bike, nigga stole my bike (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116921)

Lucky you. A nigger stole my future. 46% of government expenditures are paid with borrowed (or printed) money. What's that money being used for? No one knows, but you (and I) will be paying for it.

isn't it time for (1, Interesting)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116521)

isn't it about time for us to switch to SAS? (Serial Attached SCSI)

Re:isn't it time for (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116699)

No, because SAS will always be more expensive than SATA.

Re:isn't it time for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117085)

True because SAS exists mainly as a marketing differentiator for server hardware.

Re:isn't it time for (1)

ard (115977) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117115)

Perhaps due to the fact that there is a performance difference between scsi and ata?

But, with an increased volume of SAS drive sales, the price difference should be smaller.

Re:isn't it time for (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117389)

Actually, there really isn't much difference. The main difference is that hard drive manufacturers build their SCSI/SAS drives better than their IDE/SATA drives, because most SCSI/SAS drives are going into servers.

The performance difference historically was much faster and that's the reason why SCSI is used in server hardware, but now it's mostly a matter of economics and pricing.

Re:isn't it time for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117739)

Actually, there really isn't much difference. The main difference is that hard drive manufacturers build their SCSI/SAS drives better than their IDE/SATA drives, because most SCSI/SAS drives are going into servers.

The performance difference historically was much faster and that's the reason why SCSI is used in server hardware, but now it's mostly a matter of economics and pricing.

If you believe that, I've got some prime swampland and a bridge or two to sell you.

Of course, disk manufacturers SAY they make their more expensive drives "better". But have you ever gotten any real, measurable stats from any one of them?

Re:isn't it time for (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116887)

I'd say if it's bandwidth we're after, we shouldn't be reducing the number of signal lines. Do things in parallel [wikipedia.org] instead of serializing everything and depending on astronomical clock speeds. Obviously PATA is obsolete but especially with the rising importance of multiprocessing we should be focusing on more parallel solutions, perhaps allowing multiple reads at a time on different lines of the connector.

Re:isn't it time for (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116975)

Agreed. What we need to see is some form of in-drive RAID (as a comparison only, not actual implementation), where there are multiple INDEPENDANT heads reading/writing on multiple platters all at the same time, with each head having it's own independant I/O line on the connector.

That would be cool.

Forget Heads... (4, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117053)

where there are multiple INDEPENDANT heads reading/writing on multiple platters all at the same time

The entire idea of 'heads' should be forgotten. Mechanical drives should be sent to oblivion and we should welcome your idea of parallelism on solid state solutions.

Re:Forget Heads... (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117277)

Did I miss the memo that says flash no longer has a limit on how many times it can be written upon?

Re:Forget Heads... (2, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117381)

While all flash is solid state, not all solid state is flash.

Re:Forget Heads... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117635)

It has a limit, but it's hard to reach even with cheap flash, and almost impossible with good flash unless you're doing something really unusual. And the bigger the disk gets the harder it is to reach it, due to wear levelling.

Also, hard disks are not eternal by any measure, and will fail mechanically, and often without warning and in a much less predictable fashion.

Re:isn't it time for (2, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117687)

It's been tried, and didn't work well.

The drive heads are some of the most expensive parts of a hard disk, so it raises the price considerably. Then you get higher power usage, heat generation, decreased reliability, and higher complexity in exchange for the extra performance.

The problem is that normal people don't look at speed, they look at capacity. So they won't buy the expensive drives. And the people who do look at things like bandwidth and latency are already running a RAID and benefitting from multiple heads already. They're also unlikely to want something that's less reliable.

Re:isn't it time for (5, Informative)

kaiser423 (828989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116981)

You do realize that at either end of a Parallel link you'd have to re-serialize right? That's what PATA does. So you still need the high clock rate regardless of how much you parallelize it on the wires. That's extra hardware, and another piece the needs to be be really fast. Then you also have issues with maintaining clocking integrity over parallel lines, which gets tricky at high data rates.

Right now, our technology is better in going pure serial. In the past, it was parallel. It might swing back and forth a couple of times between the two in the future. But make no mistake: right now, on commodity hardware for drives connected via cables, serial is pulling ahead in the speed war.

Re:isn't it time for (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117651)

at either end of a Parallel link you'd have to re-serialize right?

Why? At the disk end, enough platters/heads will give you bits in parallel. Just buffer
each to allow for skew, and you can read a byte on each clock tick.

And why would you need to re-serialise at the main bus end?

NOT that I am saying parallel is a good idea.

Re:isn't it time for (5, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116993)

The problem with parallel is that you can't crank up the clock speed because you have to make sure that the signal on each line is combined with the ones from the other lines that were sent at the same time. This limits how fast you can send the send the bits (if the time being bits is comparable to the skew time, the receiver will not be able to reliably reassemble the data) and how long the interconnect can be (skew being linearly amplified by length). It's not for nothing that PCI has been replaced with PCI-E, PATA with SATA, SCSI with SAS. USB and IEE1394 would be impossible with parallel. Serial communications are more reliable and more scalable (one big exception -- wireless RF, but that's not what we are discussing here).

Multiprocessing, incidentally, has nothing to do with it -- the software interface to a storage device hides all the implementation details (PATA/SATA, for instance) anyway. The hard part in multi-threading IO-intensive apps has quite a bit more to do with latency issues and atomicity guarantees (the complete lack thereof) rather than the inability of the storage device to do 2 things at once (which, for a physical disk, is impossible anyway, meaning that it would have to back-convert into a serial process anyway).

Re:isn't it time for (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117069)

That's right, but what the OP is (I think) saying is that we really should just look at overall performance. Generally speaking, you can get more done per clock cycle over a parallel interface than over a serial one. And, of course, what makes serial interfaces beat parallel interfaces (when they do win) is their ability to be clocked at a higher rate.

Re:isn't it time for (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117707)

What i think he was trying to get at is this: say you have a 4 platter HDD. Instead of having the heads all working as one you feed each of the platters off a different SATA line. In essence you would have a single RAID drive doing RAID-0. Which might just work, but it would depend on how much the controllers and extra motors would add to the cost.

What I want to know is what happened to the hybrid idea? I though that was frankly the way to go. Much in the same vein as the WD "green" drives you could have the things that are less likely to change(Say the core OS) stored on a nice fast 16Gb of SSD, while having pictures, videos and all the other programs and files stored on a much larger but slower HDD. I doubt it would even be hard to set up. Just have the drive come with an installer that after OS install uses Junction points to point Documents and Settings, Program Files, and all other non core OS files to the HDD. For all other Operating Systems(or if you don't want to use the installer and instead want to DIY) it would simply look like 2 drives-the smaller SSD OS drive, and the larger HDD storage drive. This would allow everyone to take advantage of the speed of SSD while not having to sacrifice storage space as they do currently.

There also needs to be a reliable optical or tape based storage device marketed to the masses. With DVD and even BD(which is still way too expensive for the masses and has too many DRM problems) there simply isn't enough storage to backup the mounds of HDD space that even the cheap machines are coming with nowadays. External HDDs should be only viewed as a stopgap because you still have the inherent problem of dealing with a mechanical medium. There needs to be a simple way to back up large amounts of data and simply "stuff it away" until needed such as what servers have with tape. But we really haven't seen any medium targeting the home user since DVD, and with the mounds of data being created by cameras, camcorders, etc it really is long overdo IMHO. Because all the speed in the world doesn't help if you can lose it all simply by accidentally dropping the external HDD.

Re:isn't it time for (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117043)

The problem with the parallel approach is the difficulty in ensuring parallel signals get to their destinations at the same time.

Maybe in the future we'll figure out how to take today's high signaling rates and parallelize them, but the engineering choices made right now are for good reasons.

Nope, system designers want serial comms (1)

JayBat (617968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117501)

I'd say if it's bandwidth we're after, we shouldn't be reducing the number of signal lines.

Nope, Package pins are expensive, cable connectors are expensive, board traces are expensive, cabling is expensive. On the other hand, silicon is cheap. :-)

A 6gbps serial link is straightforward to implement, if you know what you're doing, and there are probably a couple dozen design groups around the world that can do it.

Jay

Re:isn't it time for (4, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116995)

Why? Do you have a hard drive that can even saturate a SATA I bus?

hard drive that can saturate SATA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117149)

Yes, SSDs commonly saturate the bus. And they'll probably saturate SATA3.0 on day one. Prepare for mass storage connected to the north bridge.

Re:hard drive that can saturate SATA? (3, Informative)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117181)

Prepare for mass storage connected to the north bridge.

/me wanks furiously!

Re:hard drive that can saturate SATA? (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117307)

Preparing for how much faster your porn will load?

Re:hard drive that can saturate SATA? (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117235)

Agreed that it's eventually going to be on the northbridge. However, SAS isn't there now, either, and SSDs are still likely to saturate that bus in the near future.

SATA vs SAS is a different debate than IDE vs SCSI. Even on servers, it's easy to now justify the cheeper standard compared to the older standards. Not in all cases, of course, but far more often than you could with IDE.

Re:hard drive that can saturate SATA? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117547)

No mass market SSD can saturate SATA-2 yet, the Intel X-25e at 250MB/s sequential reads is the current performance leader for affordable drives. The next generation will be able to saturate SATA-2 and will probably push SATA-3 before the next SATA spec is finalized if performance trends continue.

Re:isn't it time for (3, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117281)

Yea, while swearing at Apple 24/7 for giving SATA1 with Quad G5 Workstation (most expensive G5), I purchased a very nice performing Western Digital Caviar 1TB drive having 32MB cache. It took a while to figure that I can't really saturate SATA1 bus, even with "fill with zeros" (format) of OS X, it went up to 140MB/sec. Of course, Apple expects me to buy a ATTO like high end card if I need more bandwidth.

What matters is SSD, that is why they release the spec right now. If you have enough money to setup a very high end (not toy-like) SSD right now, you will see SATA2 is the bottleneck. People were already talking about a different standard or even getting rid of SATA alltogether for them.

Re:isn't it time for (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117201)

If you are doing large database work, redundancy needed or 2K/4K video work, you may need SAS. In fact, you would still boot OS and Apps from a serial ATA device and use SAS for program (database, movie etc) data. SATA and SAS have compatible connectors for that reason. They don't really replace each other.

Of course, SAS is really expensive but for example, if you are at a professional studio which speed may actually earn you more money, you wouldn't care.

Interestingly, even SMART like features of SCSI doesn't replace actual SMART in SATA. Both have different powers. It can show how different directions IDE and SCSI went

Theoretical != Real World speeds (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116543)

It's a pity that while SATA 2.0 has a theoretical speed of 3GB/sec the real world speeds are around 20-25MB/sec.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (2, Funny)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116559)

SSDs are pulling a whole lot more than that ... at least when they are new ;)

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (2, Interesting)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116685)

ssd's will probably end up being connected to a form of ram socket with an on-cpu controller (like system ram) in the future. eventually flash can be half as fast as system ram, so there is no real reason not to have it connected to the CPU.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117009)

Or just be RAM with a battery backup.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117079)

that's going to be too costly, flash is cheaper and easier to produce in huge volume. plus power=unstable, thus flash seems like a smarter choice stability wise.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117169)

SSDs aren't (currently) aiming for the price/GB crown. The power instability is manageable. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but there's definately a niche.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116589)

Gb!=GB. Divide by 8.

And you should beck your drive settings. My old IDE drives beat 20MB/s. I just checked my newest SATA drive and I got 113MB/sec in hdparm.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (5, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116653)

Wow, both your numbers are wrong. SATA 2.0 has a theoretical transfer rate of 3Gb/s, not 3GB/s. It also uses an 8b/10b encoding [wikipedia.org] , so 3.0Gb/s translates to 300MB/s. Data throughput will be less than that, thanks to control protocol overhead, though the overhead is very small.

Modern drives do seriously better than 25MB/s. Seriously, go look at benchmarks. Also, SSDs, which are a very real design influence on things like SATA, are already getting close to the 300MB/s mark.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

Alystair (617164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116747)

Just saw a 4x SSD Raid-0 setup pull 350MB/s, so I'd say this is a good direction :-)

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

Alystair (617164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116791)

Eh sorry, that small number is from IOMeter.. CrystalMark reports 1504MB/s for sequential reading. 75MB/s for 4k random writes ain't too shabby either :)

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

BlendieOfIndie (1185569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117477)

If the two IO benchmarks are *that* far apart, there is something seriously wrong with the test. Mostly likely, one of the tests is reading the same data blocks over and over, and the blocks are being stored in cache (either on the disk, in the array, or on the OS). What type of interface attaches the drives? If it's a 4x SAS connection, then the max theoretical bandwidth is 1200MB/sec.

Beyond that, using the word "sequential" with SSDs makes no sense because the internal bits aren't stored sequentially as they are on a hard disk. Perhaps you meant "read performance".

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117603)

Actually sequential vs random WRITES make a BIG difference for MLC SSD's and a significant difference for SLC SSD's due to the way that cells are accessed.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (1)

BlendieOfIndie (1185569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117817)

Sorry, "two IO benchmarks" was ambiguous - I meant the difference between IOMeter (350MB/sec) and CrystalMark (1504MB/sec). There is an order of magnitude difference between these benchmarks. I suggested that one was affectively measuring cache performance, but I suppose it is possible that one was measuring reads and the other measuring writes. It could also be the number of IO streams hitting the disks. The point is that the numbers posted need to be reexamined.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (2, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117557)

I really wish SATA 3.0 had a bigger jump than this. 600MB/sec is hardly anything for some of the high end SSDs and RAM-drives available.

If they become affordable, I'm definitely going for PCIe 4x SSDs, since they can hit 8GB/sec (80gbit) when RAID'd on server boards with tons of PCIe lanes [channelregister.co.uk] .

I remember when someone stuck six FusionIO IODrives together and got about 2.2GB/sec of bandwidth out of a regular 2-socket server board. (like those Tyan ones, which can be had for well under $1000) It seriously makes me drool... though I suppose all I really need out of an SSD is 200MB/sec with minimal latency.

Re:Theoretical != Real World speeds (5, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117233)

Sequential reads on large-capacity drives are often in the 70-90MB/s range (yes MB, not Mb), bursting into the 200MB/s range. Hell, I've seen 50MB/s+ for at least the last half a decade. High-quality (read: expensive) SSDs can roughly double that.

And of course, the spec is in gigabits per second, not gigabytes, and includes overhead. Actual supported, sustained transfer is supported at 150MB/s, 300MB/s, and 600MB/s on SATAI-III respectively.

SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116569)

If my understanding of the technology is correct, the seek time on most hard drives already limits drive access speed to typically be slower than 3Gb/sec. Would this rely on a transition to Solid State Drives for any noticeable difference in performance?

Re:SSD (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116727)

Probably not. Even if you had a device that would supply the (most? if not all) commercial interfaces aren't actually capable of moving it that fast.

Re:SSD (5, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117039)

If my understanding of the technology is correct, the seek time on most hard drives already limits drive access speed to typically be slower than 3Gb/sec. Would this rely on a transition to Solid State Drives for any noticeable difference in performance?

The seek time has nothing to do with the throughput. The seek time refers to the latency between when a read command is issued and when it begins to be fulfilled. The throughput refers to the data transferred per unit time during fulfillment.

Here's a nice car analogy for those of us in New England -- consider the Mass Pike versus I-93. The Mass Pike has a very long seek time from the onramp because of the toll lanes (and the mouth breathers that won't get a transponder even though they are now free and clog the automatic lanes) but once you get on the highway, you can go 80 MPH until your exit. On I-93, by contrast, you can get right on, but you will be going 30 MPH for the duration. Of course, if you drive down to CT and get on I-84, you have a low-latency AND high throughput highway but if you drive too far down to, say, the Bronx, it becomes high-latency and low throughput.

Re:SSD (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117411)

and the mouth breathers that won't get a transponder even though they are now free and clog the automatic lanes

Some of us don't like the government being able to monitor our vehicle's location, and another group of us doesn't like the government to have direct access to our bank account.

6 Gb/sec? Meh (4, Funny)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116579)

Let me know when we hit 1.21 GW -- then I'll be excited!

Re:6 Gb/sec? Meh (0)

ijakings (982830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116855)

Surely you mean 1.21JW

Re:6 Gb/sec? Meh (5, Funny)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116969)

Surely you mean 1.21JW

1.21 Joule Watts?

WTF is 1.21 m^4*kg^2/s^5 good for?

Re:6 Gb/sec? Meh (2, Funny)

DimmO (1179765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117015)

Time travel?

Re:6 Gb/sec? Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117131)

1.21 j W (j = (-1)^0.5)

Re:6 Gb/sec? Meh (1)

The Slashdot 8Ball (1491493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117271)

j= - ((-1)^(0.5))

What is the point? (1)

supervillain (737115) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116583)

No current hard disk or even SSD can do 3Gb/sec so what is the point?

Re:What is the point? (5, Informative)

Jason Pollock (45537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116633)

Devices which aggregate themselves as a striped array behind a single eSATA/SATA interface. While the individual device may not be able to pump out enough data, they can in aggregate.

Re:What is the point? (1)

Lewis Daggart (539805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116663)

Whats the point of designing a hard disk or SSD that works faster if SATA is stuck at 3Gb/s?

Re:What is the point? (3, Informative)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116679)

Exactly, it's not like technology advances or anything. [tomshardware.com]

Re:What is the point? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116687)

3Gb/s = 375MB/s a typical HDD should be easily capable of a third of that. So high end SSD's can probably beat 375MB/s, if not now then soon

Re:What is the point? (4, Informative)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116789)

Actually the limit is 300MB/s [wikipedia.org] which some of the new drives are very close to reaching [anandtech.com] . One more generation of SSDs and they'll be bottlenecked by SATA 2.0.

Re:What is the point? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117185)

Faster, Faster!

More, More!

I think it's some kind of nerdgasm with hard drive space and speed or something.

Re:What is the point? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117511)

Faster, Faster!

More, More!

OMG, I think I just blew my wad!

Re:What is the point? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117601)

RAM drives would hit the SATA 3.0 cap, and they were available in 2005. The Gigabyte I-RAM could manage multiple GB of transfer per second(like all RAM can), but was capped by using a single 150MB/sec SATA1 port. :/

Luckily RAM is so cheap now, that if you really want a RAM drive, you just buy 16GB and create a software RAM drive.

Oh - but in 2005 games didn't average 8GB each. :P

Re:What is the point? (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116741)

Current SSDs are very close to the SATA 2.0 limit and the performance of flash is about to double thanks to ONFI 2.0, so we can expect SSDs to quickly adopt SATA 3.0.

Re:What is the point? (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116811)

Not true. SSDs are approaching that now.

HP has an enterprise SSD that is 800MB/s (Note the large B as opposed to b). So this drive could saturate SATA 3's 6 Gb/s

Re:What is the point? (1)

wbattestilli (218782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116853)

Actually, the OCZ Vertex http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_vertex_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd/ [ocztechnology.com] can sustain about 230MB/s. This is equal to about 2.3 Gb/sec. Allowing for the rate at which SSD technology seems to be changing, I'd say that this standard is just in the nick of time. Chances are that the next thing in high-end, consumer SSDs will saturate a SATA link. If this standard doesn't get pushed out soon, drive manufacturers will be doing ugly, proprietary, OS specific hacks to support multiple SATA links to a single device. In addition, lots of people are packaging multiple physical drives into a single SSD with an internal RAID-0 controller. These are definitely being(or soon going to be) held back by the 3BG/s SATA link.

Re:What is the point? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117001)

No current hard disk or even SSD can do 3Gb/sec so what is the point?

Oh yeah? [gizmodo.com]

Ah! (1)

vancondo (986849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116615)

My bank account will be delighted that there's a reason for me to hold off buying a new system.

..that is until it see's me buying overpriced bleeding edge buggy gear again.

-
-- VCI [vancouvercondo.info]

Re:Ah! (2, Informative)

prjt (1369213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116631)

My bank account is dead.

Re:Ah! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117311)

You don't need to buy new system. Well, even if you need SATA3 bandwidth, regular companies will release interface cards which will be better performing than "coming in mainboard" ones. I'd prefer a cache having, dedicated and configurable SATA card instead of that dumb chip on mainboard anytime.

Of course if you talk about laptop, it is a different matter.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116641)

Maybe now I can actually use my 320 GB external HD.

Transferring 4+ GB files took ages with SATA 2.0.

Worth noting (3, Interesting)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116695)

The spec as we have seen with most other transfer specs have little to do with real world device designs. Hardware interfaces (much less devices) languish in the "has to cost less than x per part" hell... But you bet your ass they'll put a SATA 3.0 up to 6GB per second label even though the actual device isn't designed to transfer more than a fifth (peak) of the spec. data rate.

This is NOT SATA 3.0, children! Smarten up. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116775)

http://www.serialata.org/developers/naming_guidelines.asp

Here's a clue: If you have to post a web page explaining the proper way to refer to your products, your products are poorly named.

Here's another clue: If there's a shorter/easier/faster way to refer to your product, people are going to go with that. Insisting that they do otherwise indicates delusions of grandeur.

Get the hell over it already.

I hope they make the plug stronger (4, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116777)

I've lost 3 drives due to plugs breaking off into the SATA ports on the 3.5" drives

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116987)

I've lost 3 drives due to plugs breaking off into the SATA ports on the 3.5" drives

Agreed, that's the dumbest physical connector I've seen in the longest time. I'd like to take those broken bits and shove them up the fingernails of the engineer that designed it.

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117127)

I've lost 3 drives due to plugs breaking off into the SATA ports on the 3.5" drives

Agreed, that's the dumbest physical connector I've seen in the longest time. I'd like to take those broken bits and shove them up the fingernails of the engineer that designed it.

Obviously, you have never used an HDMI connector.

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (3, Funny)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117285)

I raise you SCART [petegraham.co.uk] . (Thankfully now disappearing.)

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117563)

I've lost 3 drives due to plugs breaking off into the SATA ports on the 3.5" drives

Agreed, that's the dumbest physical connector I've seen in the longest time.

Nah - that would be SCART [wikipedia.org]
Most awful connector ever, especially in comibation with poor manufacturing.

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (4, Funny)

grommit (97148) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117379)

Maybe you should stop using a hammer when plugging in a new hard drive?

Re:I hope they make the plug stronger (3, Informative)

yachius (1348219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117429)

Same here. I plugged in a drive a few weeks ago with a regular straight cable and bent the cable up to fit in the case and the connector promptly snapped off.

Only one problem with this: (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116785)

we don't even have any actual 3.0Gbps disk drives yet. They're upgrading the interface yet again when we have barely even got to the point of saturating the one from TWO generations ago (with magnetic media anyway).

The industry has largely been selling SATA II devices to unwitting consumers based on the perceived promise of 3GBps performance, which of course no one has been getting.

Instead of obsessing over the interface like this, how about they put some equivalent effort into speeding up the actual output of devices that use the interface?

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116847)

Maybe they will double the disk memory cache to something larger like 16MB or 32MB. Even with only 8MB it really amazes me that just the disk drive has more RAM memory than PC's from a decade ago.

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117301)

Hard drives have been shipping with 16MB cache for several years now, and plenty are available with 32MB. RAM is so damn cheap though that they should be seriously considering stuff in the 1GB range for high-end drives.

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116895)

For hard disks, making them much faster isn't really possible. The disk needs to spin faster, or the information needs to be packed more tightly. Currently advances are mostly in the packing, but aren't reaching yet even SATA II levels.

Hard disks will get a slight benefit though because they have a cache and they can transfer data from or to it faster than the platter can handle.

For SSDs, even exceeding SATA 3 is perfectly possible by simply internally parallelizing requests. Also, for SSDs, the interface's latency is probably a fairly significant part of the time it takes to service a request.

Re:Only one problem with this: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28116909)

how about they put some equivalent effort into speeding up the actual output of devices that use the interface?

SSDs use the interface, and they're getting close to hitting the 300MBps throughput mark (maximum after sata overhead).

There are also several external raid enclosures that use eSATA and appear as a single high-throughput drive to the onboard sata controller.

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117133)

Yes, I was overlooking the effect of striping multiple drives on the SATA bus, but I doubt if even the fanciest RAID 0 or 5 disk array can come close to saturating even SATA II. SSDs are a much bigger threat, but still pretty costly.

Re:Only one problem with this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117623)

SATA-PM (port multiplier) means you can have just a bunch of disks hanging off of one SATA port. there are many drives that can sustain 100 MB/s for quite a while, so only three of those are needed to saturate a 3 Gb/s link.

What I wonder is whether we'll ever see convergence with something like 10 Gb/s (or faster) ethernet ports on disks, so we can use commoditized multi-path switching and routing fabrics between disks and hosts.

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

ProfMobius (1313701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117057)

The industry has largely been selling SATA II devices to unwitting consumers based on the perceived promise of 3GBps performance

Well, knowing that the standard is backward compatible (from TFA), what is the point in crying ? You will get a faster interface for the same price as the old one, being able to use your current hardware, and when the drives reach this speed, you will be ready (and from previous posting, looks like SSD are close to saturate SATA II).

Re:Only one problem with this: (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117259)

Except the interface specs and other technology will move forward yet again before the devices themselves ever catch up, as has happened with virtually ALL the SATA-bearing motherboards I have ever bought. I'm paying for an interface that I will never be able to fully utilize before the motherboard becomes obsolete e-waste. I don't think the total cumulative combined cost of this interface advancement is as cheap as you think it is, and I don't like paying for something I can't even fully use. I can cite you a far worse example: I once made the misguided choice to buy Pentium-class motherboards with embedded SCSI interfaces. Guess how much I paid for that privilege? $450 EACH, far too big a chunk of it because of the SCSI. I won't do that again, I hope.

My "point in crying", then, is to get other people thinking about the hidden costs and lack of pragmatism involved here. You can disagree or refuse to think about it if you want.

Sata Smata (3, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116913)

What about us using MFM drives with removable platters?

Re:Sata Smata (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117309)

We are still looking for serial cables with 8ga wire......

Re:Sata Smata (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117523)

We'll get off your lawn now.

Stupid (4, Interesting)

TheParadox2 (1562593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28116937)

I think in a years time frame, we could see the 6 Gb/s passed with the way SSDs are going. To make this standard is dumb. If we're looking for speed, SATA 6Gb/s is not it and this ancient CHS scheme has to go to accommodate a better way to map, access and control data. Ultimately, we need to have these devices understand & control the file system. (Trim does this for SSDs) For example: The OCZ vertex nearly saturates the 3Gb/s mark already. They only way the drives 'fail' to accomplish this sustaining speed is with random writes, typically which occur when writing data to a spot marked as available when the NAND isn't zeroed, it either has to re-zero or move on. If the drive knows that the OS is deleting a file (not marking the site, as available) then the drive can zero automatically without you noticing. Its only in certain conditions, these drive don't Consistently perform at peak performance: Free space not consolidated, Free space not zeroed, Swap file creates random writing (slows performance), Indexing is now useless with .1 ms seek times. Using write filters, or something that converts random writes to sequential writes (through buffers, caches or drivers) greatly enhances speed, such as the MFT Software or even windows SteadyState for the devices. I like the idea of the 'RAM socket' interface as someone stated above. These devices i think work better in a parallel manner. Most work like this internally anyway.

Re:Stupid (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117715)

I think the most likely outcome is SSD's move to something like ExpressCard, a physical spec which extends the PCIe bus out to the storage. The drives will show up as a SCSI/SATA controller AND a virtual disk attached to that controller so that the software layer doesn't have to be changed.

3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117049)

Damn marketing junk. WTF is 3.0? Why not 3?

SATA 3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28117195)

I'm still using MFM, you insensitive clod!

FAQ says $400-500 (1)

c-bo-licious (836413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117353)

That website says $400-500

Not impressed (1)

SpitfireSMS (1388089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117465)

This is only a margin faster than the new USB 3.0 spec, at 4.9Gbits...

I see more headway being made in the flash storage area.
I really doubt hard drives as we know it will last another couple years.
With SSDs and flash being faster, it only makes sense

I love hard drive technology..... (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28117805)

Today at work a brand new 1TB seagate came in. I went over to my machine to breathe life back into it to find out that it was instead a 32 megabyte drive according to Windows. Immediately the cache sprang to mind. The drive actually is reporting the cache as the actual drive. Well...hell. At first I thought it was just DOA with corrupt firmware, but after some googling you can actually reset the size that the drive reports with LBA. Hopefully I won't have too many other problems. Not a big fan of the newer seagates, but my boss seems to be going for whatever is cheapest these days.... :/

I would love to get away from complex mechanical drives as a storage medium. Can't someone just make some solid state cube that will hold a petabyte (no petabyte in mozilla's spell checker?? for shame!) and can withstand being written to millions of times?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>