Google wasn't much help on this.

What's the difference in access speeds on a SATA raid setup and a ATA raid setup. Assume it's ATA 133. It will be a two drive setup, I'm not sure which raid style I will use.

SCSI is not an option. I've only set them up, never compared the speeds. I'm ASSUMING SATA is faster, but I've been wrong before.

1/10/2006 7:58:35 AM

http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread15093.html

nevermind found a post finally.

1/10/2006 8:04:57 AM

SATA, on PCIe, with a decent hardware card. Use SATA 2.0 drives, and it'll stomp the shit out of anything less than a fibrechannel setup.

1/10/2006 1:31:11 PM

fyi in the future:

IDE (ATA/66) = 66MBps
IDE (ATA/100) = 100MBps
IDE (ATA/133) = 133MBps
SATAI (aka SATA-150) = 150MBps
SATAII (aka SATA-300) = 300MBps

*maximum theoretical throughput

1/10/2006 2:20:37 PM

So, what you're saying Noen is that even if my mobo runs SATA, I should buy a SATA card for it?

3/10/2006 9:14:38 PM

^ if you want the *MOST* performance from RAID and SATA, then yes

3/11/2006 12:15:02 AM

software RAID onto PCI 64/66 on an old dual P3 or K7 motherboard would be the price/performance high throughput RAID solution

if you don't mind spending as much as it'd cost to assemble the software RAID box above on just the controller card, hardware PCIe would be the way to go

except hardware RAID isn't really advantageous in any situation but local storage to a highly loaded server-- it's not as efficient in terms of throughput and latency as software RAID, while software RAID is a trivial load (<10%) to a modern processor. Bus bandwidth is the more important factor-- you can achieve high throughput by using multiple PCI 32/33 cards in multiple 32/33 busses, one PCI 32/33 card and a chipset-integrated controller, 32/33 and a 32-bit card in a downclocked PCI 64/66 slot, or a multi-channel controller in a 64/66 slot, whatever... the important thing to take from this is that the bus is the bottleneck, and you should optimize that primarily. After that, though, SATA is most cost-effective if you want to maximize capacity, while SCSI is definitely most cost-effective if you want to maximize raw or transactional throughput

if you don't want your RAID to exceed ~120MB/sec sustained throughput and don't care about non-linear access, then just buy 2 late-generation SATA drives (not necessarily 2.0, but drives with high areal density and consequent high STR) and put them on seperate channels of your integrated controller, and pimp the software RAID

[Edited on March 12, 2006 at 7:24 PM. Reason : *]

3/12/2006 7:23:11 PM

Honestly, drives these days aren't fast enough to make SATA much faster than PATA. Unless you're only reading outta the cache, it won't really matter since you can't get the data off the platters that fast anyway.

3/13/2006 3:09:48 PM

I think you missed the point of using raid. With RAID you can read from multiple disks at once, which can push way more bandwidth than a single drive can.

3/13/2006 3:53:52 PM

yeah, but the interface is only pullin data off one drive. If it's scsi where all the drives are chained, it's a different story thou.

3/13/2006 5:06:13 PM

i'm not sure you know what you're talking about

3/15/2006 12:22:06 AM

hahaha drewt, please just stop the bleeding

3/15/2006 12:45:53 AM

3/15/2006 1:41:43 AM