Serial ATA and Serial SCSI

aibrahim writes "In the recent Slashdot article about Serial ATA some people wanted to know where SCSI was going, and if Serial ATA could deal with some higher end workstation and low end server requirements. Apparently it has been decided that Serial ATA 2 (pdf doc) and Serial Attached SCSI are the answers."

Comments

Copy/Paste a previously published article, anyone?

[jhoffoss]

Nearly anything is better than ribbon cables. aibrahim writes "In the recent /. article about Serial ATA some people wanted to know where SCSI was going, and if Serial ATA could deal with some higher end workstation and low end server requirements. Apparently it has been decided that Serial ATA 2 (pdf doc) and Serial Attached SCSI are the answers."

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/04/153224 =nested=167

Difference

[SpatchMonkey]

The main difference is that Serial ATA will be more readily available first, and will therefore become more popular.

If you look at the Serial SCSI page in the FAQ, note that it is still under development, where motherboards supporting Serial ATA are out now.

Sheesh!

[Mike Hicks]

...and just as I'm building my fibre channel array for my home computer :-p

Serial SCSI is neat.

[Sheetrock]

I've read a couple of brochures on this technology (we're looking at high-bandwidth high-availability file clusters for our hybrid AS/400-Solaris data warehousing) and it looks extremely promising.

Basically, they're extending parallel SCSI technology to address next generation I/O and direct attach storage requirements. It uses the (proven) interface from Serial ATA to avoid an unnecessarily proprietary interface and the costs that usually entails. The naming is unfortunate, because one usually thinks of parallel (side-by-side) as being faster than serial (one after the other) when the technology allows you to combine the two tactics much like in LANs. This is the technology that will enable a new generation of dense devices, such as small form factor hard drives, whereas Parallel SCSI can't because of cabling and voltage issues.

So depending on the pricing of the technology when it hits the shelves/junk mail catalogs, we're going to take a serious look at it. Does anybody have any prototype benchmarks?

Re:just like the RAMBUS story

[cheezedawg]

Ethernet has had no problems scaling to higher bandwith while maintaining its serial "bus". Serial ATA is a packetized interface that is more similar to ethernet than RAMBUS. They already have 600 MB/sec SATA on the roadmap.

Evil Drives

[Blahbbs]

So when will someone come out with a Serial ATA Network device?

Yup, a SATAN Device (tm).

...boo...hiss....

I heard

[Apreche]

that serial ATA, while being very fast and much better than what I've got now, will have DRM built in. Is this true? Should I not get serial ATA in my next system because of it? Anyone got any links pertaining to this issue?

Re:Internal firewire?

[alienmole]

Current Firewire is half the bandwidth of ATA/100. Theoretically, Firewire can be saturated by a single fast disk, so for internal Firewire you'd want a separate Firewire channel on the motherboard for each disk - but Firewire was really intended to be a serial bus which supports multiple devices. That's why in its current form, Firewire is more appropriate for connecting devices like video recorders, or hooking up a single external drive for data portability, than for internal drives.

ATA/SCSI distinction

[XNormal]

With current silicon integration levels there is no real reason why SCSI should be more expensive than ATA. They could have just merged them and perhaps emulated braindead ATA on top of SCSI to keep compatibility or something if anyone really wants to.

I'm pretty sure the only reason they keep the difference is to be able to charge more from people building servers. It's purely a marketing and price positioning decision.

So?

[gerardrj]

They still don't say that serial ATA will support more than two devices per channel. In fact they say it will be software compatible with ATA in its current form, suggesting it continues the master/slave relationship.

Today's drive media can only reach 40MB/s reading from the platters for short bursts, if their lucky. Normally they'll read/write about 20MB/s. What's the point of another boost in speed of ATA (to the suggested 150MB/s) when you will only ever be able to use 80MB/s of that. Oh, that's right... the ignorant users need bigger numbers on their cardboard boxes to show off to the neighbors.

Does anyone have any information on a HD soon to be released that will offer a quantum leap of read-from-meadia performance to something like 75MB/s? That's more than triple the current read-from-meadia speeds, and they seem to only ever increase the speeds by about 1-2MB/s each year.

SCSI makes sense having very high bus bandwidth, as you can connect quite a few devices and use the connect/disconnect to send simultaneous reads/writes to multiple devices. In that scheme, you can keep most of your drives operating at the same time. Of course Apple has shown that at least for a small RAID, multiple independent ATA channels are just as fast and lower cost than a single SCSI channel. I persoanally have a difficult time thinking that multi-ATA design would scale well to a 32 drive RAID, where a dual channel SCSI would shine.

Re:So?

[gerardrj]

But the buffers are insignificant. an 8MB buffer will be emptied or filled over the wire in .06 seconds at 133MB/s. So you can't get max throughput for anything longer than about .2 seconds.

Since the caches on the drives don't undstand filesystems or file structure, they can only contain things that have already been read from disk, or assume the next read will be a sequential block and pre-fetch that. More often than not, the cache on the drive does not contain the requested data. The disk cache only helps for small files that are re-read often like directories, and really the OS's disk cache will provide even better performance in these situations. The drive buffer does nothing to increase real-world data throughput on ATA disks, it's just there so the drive makers can claim a really high (wire speed) peak throughput number. Caches do make sense on SCSI drives where the drive can be ordered to read a set of blocks to buffer, disconnect, and later have the blocks read from buffer. During that drive's read phase (while disconnected) other drives can be commanded to read or write data to/from their buffers. This is why SCSI RAID systems outperform ATA RAID systems.

As for the increase in drive throughput from media: if future advances play out the way the industry has advanced in the past, it will be 15-20 years before a drive will be able to move 100MB/s sustained from rotational media. 10 years ago we where getting 10MB/s sustained, today we are getting 20, sometimes 30. Switching to some non-rotational media might see throughput increase dramatically, but all such devices I've seen connect to Firewire or USB[2] thus negating the need for more ATA bandwidth.

Serial ATA is a project in search of a problem, or perhaps more accurately marketing hype in search of consumer dollars.