pirata
6th December 2002, 17:27
It is my intention in this thread to gather insight about latest hard drive technologies, in order to provide some help to help those planning to upgrade their systems (e.g. me! :-) ).
I think it is clear that, as CPU power and bus bandwidth grow higher and higher, more powerful HD subsystems are needed. Maybe I am wrong, but I even think to remember reading in a specialized tech publication (probably PCMag/ExtremeTech) that HD is becoming the actual bottleneck in nowadays systems.
Faster HDs mean faster swapping, shorter application load times, faster data editing. Many of us are involved in audio/video (AV) editing. While AV encoding needs much CPU a little HD speed, editing uses to be on the contrary, and the speed limitation is, of course, your HD.
RAID has definitely hit the streets, while SerialATA is slowly getting hotter. These two technologies are seem to be the next big thing in desktops for the next year. It is my intention to gather some comparative data about them.
SCSI could also be an option, but I think it is not mainstream and doesn't seem ever going to be. I don't know exact prices, but it is enough for me the fact that it is not in the hardware lists fo local PC-shops in this country (I guess they keep it for their corporation customers).
My point of view, which I invite you all to comment on, is as follows: serial ATA seems to be just a new interface between traditional magnetic technology and the chipset. Higher speeds on the chipset/HD bus just provide for an idler bus, not higher transfer speeds. It is true that higher data densities increase read/write speeds, but it does also in normal ATA drives, and they are much cheaper! And now ATA is going ATA133, which will be still cheapier than SerialATA (I haven't got prices for SerialATA, but I guess it will the "expensive choice" when it appear).
On the other hand, RAID seems a really speedy but cost-effective solution, since multiple reading/writing mechanisms can work at the same time. If you buy 2 drives, you get the same magnetic tech/high data density plus speedy 133ATA/8MB buffer and, above all, 2 read/write mechanisms. It could be as expensive as SerialATA. Maybe cheapier, as HD pricess are getting lower.
The only caveat for RAID is the already known problems with RAID drivers, but it seems to be a bother only for apps that use real DOS mode, such drive image applications (which is not an unimportant matter, though).
So, to me, the questions is: one serialATA or 2 standard ATA drives put in a RAID array?
Thanks to those who contribute with their knowledge!
Marc
P.S.: IBM seems to be pushing a new HD magnetical material that provides for even higher data densities. It seems to be an easy to introduce modification in current HD desings. Does anybody know how is it doing?
I think it is clear that, as CPU power and bus bandwidth grow higher and higher, more powerful HD subsystems are needed. Maybe I am wrong, but I even think to remember reading in a specialized tech publication (probably PCMag/ExtremeTech) that HD is becoming the actual bottleneck in nowadays systems.
Faster HDs mean faster swapping, shorter application load times, faster data editing. Many of us are involved in audio/video (AV) editing. While AV encoding needs much CPU a little HD speed, editing uses to be on the contrary, and the speed limitation is, of course, your HD.
RAID has definitely hit the streets, while SerialATA is slowly getting hotter. These two technologies are seem to be the next big thing in desktops for the next year. It is my intention to gather some comparative data about them.
SCSI could also be an option, but I think it is not mainstream and doesn't seem ever going to be. I don't know exact prices, but it is enough for me the fact that it is not in the hardware lists fo local PC-shops in this country (I guess they keep it for their corporation customers).
My point of view, which I invite you all to comment on, is as follows: serial ATA seems to be just a new interface between traditional magnetic technology and the chipset. Higher speeds on the chipset/HD bus just provide for an idler bus, not higher transfer speeds. It is true that higher data densities increase read/write speeds, but it does also in normal ATA drives, and they are much cheaper! And now ATA is going ATA133, which will be still cheapier than SerialATA (I haven't got prices for SerialATA, but I guess it will the "expensive choice" when it appear).
On the other hand, RAID seems a really speedy but cost-effective solution, since multiple reading/writing mechanisms can work at the same time. If you buy 2 drives, you get the same magnetic tech/high data density plus speedy 133ATA/8MB buffer and, above all, 2 read/write mechanisms. It could be as expensive as SerialATA. Maybe cheapier, as HD pricess are getting lower.
The only caveat for RAID is the already known problems with RAID drivers, but it seems to be a bother only for apps that use real DOS mode, such drive image applications (which is not an unimportant matter, though).
So, to me, the questions is: one serialATA or 2 standard ATA drives put in a RAID array?
Thanks to those who contribute with their knowledge!
Marc
P.S.: IBM seems to be pushing a new HD magnetical material that provides for even higher data densities. It seems to be an easy to introduce modification in current HD desings. Does anybody know how is it doing?