[ILUG] Mandrake 10
paul at clubi.ie
Tue Apr 27 20:55:06 IST 2004
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Rick Moen wrote:
> Don't forget additional ports to support up to 15 drives per host,
Is that not possible already? Can you not put 3 8-port controllers
into a host? (or are you referring to the port multiplier spec? To
allow 15 SATA ports to be multiplex to one HBA port)
> failover switches,
Interesting. There's also dual-port/multi-path specification being
worked on. SCSI doesnt have that at all.
> external connectors, and doubling of the theoretical bus bandwidth.
Yeah, only way beyond SCSI. but hey.
> But the drives themselves seem, even then, likely to remain
> underdesigned windup toys
I fail to understand why this would be so.
> heavily reliant on write-back caching to maintain even a semblance
> of reasonable performance
As far as i can tell you are now, based on a vague article and (old)
discussions on linux-kernel concerning specific ranges of drives,
generalising for all S-ATA drives. I dont think this is a safe
generalisation. Further, I dont see why use of write-back caching to
gain performance is a sole concern or specific to S-ATA, other than:
- some drives used to lie about disabling it, the hoopla surrounding
this has apparently persuaded vendors of the error of their ways.
- ATA drives are _way_ bigger than SCSI drives :) and hence are
increasingly more sensitive to cache.
You're trying to brand S-ATA as bogus because of past implementation
defects of vendors trying to chase the price/performance market.
Brand the vendors, fair enough, but generalising to an interface
technology is simply nonsensical.
> -- which is especially damning in environments with significant
> multitasking, multithreading, or multiuser access. Like, say,
Err, increased write-performance _helps_ for multi-user environments
(helps for any environment). It's a data-integrity problem on power
loss. Dont buy drives that lie about write caching. (write-through
caching isnt interesting or worth calling write caching, that's just
a free read cache - up to the drives operating system to decide how
best to cache things, provided it doesnt lie about write caching.).
> See previously cited article.
Yadah yadah, yes we read the article.
> Speaking of interfaces, I wonder how many of the excited early
> adopters were aware that almost all so-called SATA drives for the
> first year were literally the same old ATA/133 models with Marvell
> Technology Group PATA-to-SATA bridge chips tacked on?
Doesnt matter really. The intention with SATA 1.0a was to allow
bridging as an easy transition mechanism.
> "limit SII to UDMA5 (reading info on FreeBSD lists and source code
> scared me about chip errata), mainly related to PATA->SATA
hey, that's interesting (seeing as how my 2 sil3112a cards arrived
this morning). OTOH, the 'sata performance' thread had someone
trading posts with Jeff to improve sata_sil performance, resulting in
poster finally getting to point where he hit PCI bandwidth limit :)
> Yeah, that's quality.
Talk to Niall O'Broin about how wonderful SCSI controllers are.
I had 2 IBM drives die on me in the space of a month (in the same
The stated goal of the S-ATA backers (Intel, Dell, Seagate, Maxtor,
etc.) is to have it move into the high-end. There's nothing in the
_interface_ to stop it. There's only quality of implementation of
standard required for "enterprise", which will be there given the
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't,
and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.
More information about the ILUG