none
sata and pata RRS feed

  • Question

  •  

    Can I mixed in one system sata and pata drives, thinking to build new windows home server, and I run out of ports in the new system.

     

    Steve

    Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:44 AM

Answers

  • Hi,

    Yes, I test that, and no problem.

    But it best to make the system in all sata tho, for speed considration matters, other than that, it ok.

    My best.
    Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:52 AM
  • WHS uses mount points and reparse points for file organization on the disks. There are two types of disks in a WHS system: system disks and data disks. (The discussion below assumes at least three total disks, and plenty of free space.)

    System disks are the "first" disk in the system, and contain two partitions (both NTFS). The system partition (C: ) is 20 GB (not user selectable) and contains the operating system, the additional components that constitute WHS, any add-ins that may have been installed, and mount points for any additional disks in the system. The DATA partition (D: ) contains various things, depending on the number of additional disks installed. Normally the data partition contains only NTFS reparts points which point to the locations of files on data disks.

    Data disks contain your files, plus backups of enrolled PCs.

    There is no RAID in WHS. Data is protected through duplication, which stores two copies of files in shares so marked on different physical drives. This is similar to, but more flexible than, mirroring (RAID 1). Duplication protects you against loss of your files if a drive fails. RAID 5 or 6 has various negatives: it requires the use of some of your space for parity, it requires dedicated hardware, it never delivers the performance promised (in consumer implementations) and it's difficult to expand: usually you can't just slap in another disk and restripe the array "on the fly" and drives normally have to be matched in size.
    Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:21 PM
    Moderator
  • No, the system partition is fixed at 20 GB. Resizing it isn't supported. As for multiple disk failures, what data you lose depends on what files are on what disks. If both disks that a particular file is stored on fail at once, then you have lost that file. So your duplicated data is protected only against a single disk failure.

    And I've seen simultaneous disk failures just from manufacturing defects. Or at least close enough to simultaneous (<24h) to result in data loss. If you buy two disks at the same time, from the same vendor, same model, then if one fails, statistically you're much more likely to see the other disk fail soon.
    Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:13 AM
    Moderator
  •  

    To be honest, is there enough of a difference to even bother - unless you're constantly transftering lots of files on the local network to and from the WHS-machine.

     

    WHS sits there, doing its job managing backups and storage.

    And I built mine with a mix of SATA and PATA-drives, used anything available.

     

    Storage balancing and other disk intensive operations would prefer SATA over PATA I guess...

    Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:47 AM
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Ahmad, those speeds are burst speeds. A SATA II drive isn't capable of a sustained 3 Gb/s read rate; you'll be lucky to get 100 MB/s out of it.


    Ken, that true indeed, but I thought that some WHS will be in very busy network, from serving the web, upload/download files, streaming.. etc, then the benefit for that pipe BW could come in good usage if need it.

    Intel already issue the end of pata in some of thier latest chipset/motherboard, nowdays, hardly you can find pata drives anymore, atleast here.

    My best.
    Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:47 PM
  • Hi,

    No problem regarding the topic issue, BUT:

    Your info is not correct in tearm of nowdays number, here some worsd for explaination as I quote:


    Throughput

    [edit] SATA 1.5 Gbit/s

    First-generation SATA interfaces, also known as SATA/150 or (unofficially) as SATA 1, communicate at a rate of 1.5 gigabits per second (Gbit/s). Taking into account 8b10b coding overhead, the actual uncoded transfer-rate is 1.2 Gbit/s, or 150 megabytes per second (MB/s). In actual operation, SATA/150 and PATA/133 are comparable in terms of their theoretical burst-throughput. However, newer SATA devices offer enhancements (such as native command queuing) to SATA's performance in a multitask environment. For comparison, modern desktop hard drives transfer data at a maximum of ~90 MB/s[1], which is well within the performance capabilities of even the older PATA/133 specification.


    For more information about the sata controller speed issue as this topic matter, here:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA


    My best.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:48 AM

All replies

  • Hi,

    Yes, I test that, and no problem.

    But it best to make the system in all sata tho, for speed considration matters, other than that, it ok.

    My best.
    Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:52 AM
  •  

    SATA interface has nothing to do with HD speed or performance.  The average transfer rate of the fastest desktop HD (Seagate Barracuda 7200.11) just breaks 100MB/s.  The vast majority of HDs only do 50-70MB/s.  A SATA vs PATA/IDE HD of the same model will perform exactly the same.  However, SATA is better for wire management and external HDs.
    Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:36 PM
  •  DuckieHo wrote:

     

    SATA interface has nothing to do with HD speed or performance.  The average transfer rate of the fastest desktop HD (Seagate Barracuda 7200.11) just breaks 100MB/s.  The vast majority of HDs only do 50-70MB/s.  A SATA vs PATA/IDE HD of the same model will perform exactly the same.  However, SATA is better for wire management and external HDs.


    Hi,

    Sorry if I disagree here, the bus speed the main factor from sata/sata2 and pata (IDE).

    IDE bus speed (pata): top 133MB/sec
    Sata: start at 150MB/sec
    Sata 2: 300MB/sec

    My suggestion point based on: you will get better throughput on multiple drives, as if the writting done at once for example as raid, or defernt issue.

    For single drive/s setup, I agree, IDE and SATA will not be issue, but the benefit will come with multiple drives, as performance increase the matters.

    Again, it deferent view how you look at it, mainly it depended on your setup.

    My best
    Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:13 PM
  • Bus speed is never saturated at less than 100MB/s so SATA 1.5GB/s, SATA 3.0GB/s, vs IDE does not matter what-so-ever in HD performance.  This has been repeatedly proven through benchmarking.  BTW, SATA 2 or SATA II was an organization.  It is not the proper name for SATA 3.0GB/s.


    Is there any technical documentation or theoretical white paper on the how WHS organizes the disks?  Not all RAID types yield much performance benefit (i.e. RAID1).  Other forms of RAID (i.e. RAID5, 6) require a complex controller to benefit.  In addition, RAID0+1, 10, 5, ect have a physical HD constraint.
    Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:51 AM
  • WHS uses mount points and reparse points for file organization on the disks. There are two types of disks in a WHS system: system disks and data disks. (The discussion below assumes at least three total disks, and plenty of free space.)

    System disks are the "first" disk in the system, and contain two partitions (both NTFS). The system partition (C: ) is 20 GB (not user selectable) and contains the operating system, the additional components that constitute WHS, any add-ins that may have been installed, and mount points for any additional disks in the system. The DATA partition (D: ) contains various things, depending on the number of additional disks installed. Normally the data partition contains only NTFS reparts points which point to the locations of files on data disks.

    Data disks contain your files, plus backups of enrolled PCs.

    There is no RAID in WHS. Data is protected through duplication, which stores two copies of files in shares so marked on different physical drives. This is similar to, but more flexible than, mirroring (RAID 1). Duplication protects you against loss of your files if a drive fails. RAID 5 or 6 has various negatives: it requires the use of some of your space for parity, it requires dedicated hardware, it never delivers the performance promised (in consumer implementations) and it's difficult to expand: usually you can't just slap in another disk and restripe the array "on the fly" and drives normally have to be matched in size.
    Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:21 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    1.5 gigaBITS = 150 megaBYTE (1.5Gbps)
    3.0 gigaBITS = 300 megaBYTE (3.0Gbps)

    Well, my personal view that involting multiple drives for read/write to more than one drive at once, sata will show gain of speed operational in that area.

    Please notice this my personal view of the matters.

    Regarding the doc how WHS handle the issue, I am still hoping to find one, or the WHS team could help us here.

    My best.

    Update: Thanks Ken for the info.
    Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:27 PM
  •  

    Is the system partition able to expand as needed due to large addition components?

     

    With smart selective data duplication with distribution across multiple disks, what is the reduncy against hard drive failure?  WHS can obviously survive N-1 failure as you describe above.... but how about cases with more than 2-3 HDs or multiple HD failure?  While multiple simultaneous HD failure is rare (I've seen it once due a PSU failure), I would just like to be be aware of system limitations.  Thanks for the explanation thus far.

    Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:13 PM
  • No, the system partition is fixed at 20 GB. Resizing it isn't supported. As for multiple disk failures, what data you lose depends on what files are on what disks. If both disks that a particular file is stored on fail at once, then you have lost that file. So your duplicated data is protected only against a single disk failure.

    And I've seen simultaneous disk failures just from manufacturing defects. Or at least close enough to simultaneous (<24h) to result in data loss. If you buy two disks at the same time, from the same vendor, same model, then if one fails, statistically you're much more likely to see the other disk fail soon.
    Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:13 AM
    Moderator
  • Ahmad, those speeds are burst speeds. A SATA II drive isn't capable of a sustained 3 Gb/s read rate; you'll be lucky to get 100 MB/s out of it.
    Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:16 AM
    Moderator
  •  

    To be honest, is there enough of a difference to even bother - unless you're constantly transftering lots of files on the local network to and from the WHS-machine.

     

    WHS sits there, doing its job managing backups and storage.

    And I built mine with a mix of SATA and PATA-drives, used anything available.

     

    Storage balancing and other disk intensive operations would prefer SATA over PATA I guess...

    Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:47 AM
  •  Ken Warren wrote:
    Ahmad, those speeds are burst speeds. A SATA II drive isn't capable of a sustained 3 Gb/s read rate; you'll be lucky to get 100 MB/s out of it.


    Ken, that true indeed, but I thought that some WHS will be in very busy network, from serving the web, upload/download files, streaming.. etc, then the benefit for that pipe BW could come in good usage if need it.

    Intel already issue the end of pata in some of thier latest chipset/motherboard, nowdays, hardly you can find pata drives anymore, atleast here.

    My best.
    Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:47 PM
  • Informative posts from all... Thanks.

     

    Steve

    Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:13 PM
  • I'm sorry to say but your equation is incorrect...1.5gigabits is not 150megaBYTEs....there's 8 bits in a byte so if you have a 1.5 gigabit transfer you have 1500megabits or 187.5megaBytes 1500 / 8 = 187.5.  and 3gigabits = 375 megabytes.  Just wanted to make sure no one got the wrong info here. 

     

    Sorry to hijack the thread...

     

     abobader wrote:
    Hi,

    1.5 gigaBITS = 150 megaBYTE (1.5Gbps)
    3.0 gigaBITS = 300 megaBYTE (3.0Gbps)

    Well, my personal view that involting multiple drives for read/write to more than one drive at once, sata will show gain of speed operational in that area.

    Please notice this my personal view of the matters.

    Regarding the doc how WHS handle the issue, I am still hoping to find one, or the WHS team could help us here.

    My best.

    Update: Thanks Ken for the info.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:33 AM
  • Hi,

    No problem regarding the topic issue, BUT:

    Your info is not correct in tearm of nowdays number, here some worsd for explaination as I quote:


    Throughput

    [edit] SATA 1.5 Gbit/s

    First-generation SATA interfaces, also known as SATA/150 or (unofficially) as SATA 1, communicate at a rate of 1.5 gigabits per second (Gbit/s). Taking into account 8b10b coding overhead, the actual uncoded transfer-rate is 1.2 Gbit/s, or 150 megabytes per second (MB/s). In actual operation, SATA/150 and PATA/133 are comparable in terms of their theoretical burst-throughput. However, newer SATA devices offer enhancements (such as native command queuing) to SATA's performance in a multitask environment. For comparison, modern desktop hard drives transfer data at a maximum of ~90 MB/s[1], which is well within the performance capabilities of even the older PATA/133 specification.


    For more information about the sata controller speed issue as this topic matter, here:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA


    My best.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:48 AM
  • Didn't know about the overhead...I stand corrected.

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:43 AM
  • Hi,

    The controllers and hard drives compaines indicated regarding thier data speed spec. within the di SI prefix (metric prefix) and not by the Binary prefix.

    Serial ata controller used the SI prefi, and "most" HDD compines join them as well, yes, it confusing issue, but that how it been for a while tho.

    My last reply did not mean you wrong regarding the Binary prefix, only regarding the issue I post above.

    My best.
    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:04 PM