Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Hardware

SATA 3.0 Release Paves the Way To 6Gb/sec Devices 248

Posted by samzenpus
from the greased-lightning dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @06:46PM (#28116579)
    Let me know when we hit 1.21 GW -- then I'll be excited!
  • Worth noting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by earnest murderer (888716) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @06:54PM (#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.

  • by pembo13 (770295) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @07:03PM (#28116777) Homepage

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

  • Sata Smata (Score:4, Funny)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @07:16PM (#28116913) Homepage Journal

    What about us using MFM drives with removable platters?

  • Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheParadox2 (1562593) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @07:19PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by afidel (530433) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @08:46PM (#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.
  • 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

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Working...