[mythtv-users] S-ATA versus plain old parallel

[DBakker at arrayasolutions.com]

Dont fall for the hype. The thing that makes SATA any faster isnt the 
drive itself but the bus technology (SATA). SATA can do syncrhonouse 
transfers on the same bus from multiple drives. ATA IDE only does one at a 
time. If you have one drive per bus (one on primary IDE and one on the 
secondary IDE) with the drives at the same RPM you will get the same 
throughput as SATA. It's all about RPM and how many disks your bus can hit 
at once. I have 6 IDE controllers ($45 per 2) in my machine with 6 drives 
and get 60MB/sec on good ol ATA IDE drives.
 



"Martin Ravell" <martin.ravell at rave-tech.com.au> 
Sent by: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
02/02/2004 09:16 AM
Please respond to
Discussion about mythtv <mythtv-users at mythtv.org>


To
"MythTV" <mythtv-users at mythtv.org>
cc

Subject
[mythtv-users] S-ATA versus plain old parallel






Hi all,

I'm spec'ing up a box for my production Myth machine and was wondering 
what
the deal is with S-ATA versus plain parallel drives. Not being a Linux 
guru
I'm interested to hear from anyone with an opinion on this.

I guess I just havn't messed around with hardware for a while and am not 
up
on the latest. From my preliminary Myth install (in an old banger PC) and
scanning this list it is apparent that HD throughput is of pretty major
importance. Does S-ATA give a worthwhile performance boost or does it pose
more problems than it solves?

BTW I'm looking at an Intel D865GLC board and potentially a 200GB Maxtor
being fed from my nice shiny new Hauppauge 350.


Regards
Marty


_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users at mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users