Talk: Serial ATA
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
SATA II and daisy-chaining drives
To whom it may concern: see [1] 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
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)
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)
