PDA

View Full Version : SATA & IDE Hard Drives



Chemical Ali
06-03-2004, 04:32 PM
I'm about to update to a new motherboard which can support SATA drives -- I already run 2 IDE hard drives on my PC (as well as 2 optical drives) -- is it possible to run a SATA drive as a 3rd hard drive alongside 2 IDE drives on my new motherboard? This would, in effect, give me 5 drives running on my new pC:
CD-Rom drive
CD-RW drive
Primary IDE drive
Secondary IDE drive
SATA drive

Many thanks

C. Ali

ilikelinux
06-03-2004, 05:04 PM
by saying can support SATA drives do you mean that it uses sata instead of ide?

Because if you aren't, well any motherboard can support stat, just by adding a sata controller.

Lohsing
06-03-2004, 05:10 PM
> drives on my PC (as well as 2 optical drives) -- is
> it possible to run a SATA drive as a 3rd hard drive
> alongside 2 IDE drives on my new motherboard?

Most definitely.

Lo.

Lohsing
06-03-2004, 05:11 PM
> by saying can support SATA drives do you mean
> that it uses sata instead of ide?

Well - I took it to mean that it uses SATA as well as IDE.

> Because if you aren't, well any motherboard can
> support stat, just by adding a sata controller.

Of course... ;)

Lo.

mejobloggs
06-03-2004, 06:07 PM
While on the topic, is one any faster than the other?

Lohsing
06-03-2004, 06:45 PM
SATA is theoretically faster.

True benefits are gained when you put 2 SATA drives into a Raid 0 configuration... now that's fast! ;)

Lo.

tweak\'e
06-03-2004, 06:50 PM
> While on the topic, is one any faster than the other?

neither really, currant hardrives aren't fast enough to make use of the extra bandwidth sata provides. however the fastest hardrives are becomming advailable only in sata as pata is phased out.

if you have an extra ata controller i would use it. eg use sata hardrive and put the dvd/cd rom/writers on seperate pata channels.

mejobloggs
06-03-2004, 09:02 PM
But if you have RAID, isnt there more chance for error, then you loose all your data or something?

tweak\'e
06-03-2004, 10:39 PM
with raid 0 the drives act as 1 drive. theres is no redundance so if one drive dies use loose all data (just like if you had a single drive).

different raid levels has differend redundance and run at different speeds.

there is little difference in speed btween sata raid and pata raid.

Chemical Ali
06-03-2004, 10:49 PM
It supports both SATA & IDE so was toying around with the idea of running both SATA and an IDE drive(s) at the same time but not sure if I could run 3 hard drives at once -- too stuck on primary/secondary IDE channel thinkinh I guess!

PoWa
06-03-2004, 10:54 PM
ARrrghh I think I'm going to go crazy.

> with raid 0 the drives act as 1 drive. theres is no redundance so if one drive dies use loose all data
&
> But if you have RAID, isnt there more chance for error, then you loose all your data or something?

What is with people using the incorrect usage of the word! In both those contexts the correct word is LOSE. Not loose!

For the meaning of loose check here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loose) and for lose check here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lose). Please use them correctly. I've even seen on anandtech.com in an article someone used loose instead of lose as well. Is it yankie spelling or something?

Suggest both of you continue taking english right through 7th form and if you've already finished school then take an english course.

tweak\'e
06-03-2004, 11:10 PM
you missed so if one drive dies use loose all data ;-)

tweak'es infamous spelling !! ! ! :^O

PoWa
07-03-2004, 12:18 AM
Yes I noticed that too but decided to pass it off as a typo ;)

Big John
07-03-2004, 02:27 AM
> there is little difference in speed btween sata raid
> and pata raid.

Disagree.

When you put the SATA on the Front Side buss (Northbridge) and use drives with big caches and RAID0 then it is faster than PATA on the PCI buss (Southbridge) due to the limitations of the buss.

metla
07-03-2004, 02:50 AM
yeah,but 99 percent of drives in home computers dont run a raid set up.

JJJJJ
07-03-2004, 07:11 AM
I am useing a 120 gig Sata disk. It runs well and is much cooler than an IDE drive. As far as I am concerned there is no discernable difference in speed.
I have a gigabyte motherboard and according to their literature there is no problem in running them in conjunction with an IDE drive.
Of course you would have to be sure your "C drive" is set to load first. I had problems getting XP to realise it was supposed to recognise the Sata drive and that the boot files were on it.
This was solved by doing a bios flash. Brand new m/b with inbuilt Sata and a bios that wanted IDE.
Jack

Chemical Ali
07-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Yeah the new mo/bo that I have is a Gigabyte GA8IK1100 so just wanting to run a sata drive as a data only drive while using one of the IDE drives as the C Drive.
So sholud be okay should'nt it?

tweak\'e
07-03-2004, 12:42 PM
> > there is little difference in speed btween sata
> >raid
> > and pata raid.
>
> Disagree.
>
> When you put the SATA on the Front Side buss
> (Northbridge) and use drives with big caches and
> RAID0 then it is faster than PATA on the PCI buss
> (Southbridge) due to the limitations of the buss.

true but it all depends on how the raid card connected to the mobo. if useing a card then its via pci bus and both types will perform the same. with onboard raid,very few connect directly on the north bridge, most conect to the south bridge which dosn't make any difference as the north and south don't use the pci bus to send data to each other, it goes via the interconnect (each manafacture has there own system and name for it) which has a high bandwidth more than enough to cope with the raid.

tweak\'e
07-03-2004, 10:53 PM
sorry ali i missed your last post.

yeah it should be fine. tho i would stick the OS on what ever drive is the fastest.

to add to what i said before, have a look at this block diagram. (http://www.via.com.tw/en/p4-series/pt880.jsp#blkdiagram)