Are SATA drives as reliable as PATA in IDE Mode?

[Bart]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset. I'm
trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives be any
less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID configuration.

I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives. I
got this observation from the following website ...

http://www.ata-atapi.com/sata.htm

"Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to implement
an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft Reset rarely
fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a command can
be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not seem
to reset anything and at some times it is basically ignored by the SATA
controller and device."

Any truth to this? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Bart <bdrummond@somewhere.net> wrote:
> I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset. I'm
> trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives be any
> less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID configuration.

> I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives. I
> got this observation from the following website ...

> http://www.ata-atapi.com/sata.htm

> "Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to implement
> an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft Reset rarely
> fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that a command can
> be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this reset does not seem
> to reset anything and at some times it is basically ignored by the SATA
> controller and device."

> Any truth to this? Thanks.

No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
still being developed.

Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
often a bit more expensive. The SATA cables are better (not
really an issue with 2 drives).

Arno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner wrote:

> Previously Bart <bdrummond@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset.
>> I'm
>> trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives be
>> any less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID
>> configuration.
>
>> I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives.
>> I got this observation from the following website ...
>
>> http://www.ata-atapi.com/sata.htm
>
>> "Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to
>> implement an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft
>> Reset rarely fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that
>> a command can be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this
>> reset does not seem to reset anything and at some times it is basically
>> ignored by the SATA controller and device."
>
>> Any truth to this? Thanks.
>
> No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
> some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
> just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
> kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
bridge chip--apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.
>
> I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
> somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
> still being developed.
>
> Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
> often a bit more expensive.

Except for (a) Raptors and (b) some models shipping with the seek algorithms
tuned for low noise in the PATA models and maximum performance in the PATA
models.

> The SATA cables are better (not
> really an issue with 2 drives).

Whether they're "better" is debatable--they're thinner but the connectors
are horribly fragile.

> Arno

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
[...]
>> No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
>> some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
>> just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
>> kernel 2.4.22 and should work.

> There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
> SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
> bridge chip--apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
> down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.

Aha, I see.

>> I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
>> somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
>> still being developed.
>>
>> Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
>> often a bit more expensive.

> Except for (a) Raptors and (b) some models shipping with the seek
> algorithms tuned for low noise in the PATA models and maximum
> performance in the PATA
I guess this ^ is an 'S' ;-)
> models.

>> The SATA cables are better (not really an issue with 2 drives).

> Whether they're "better" is debatable--they're thinner but the connectors
> are horribly fragile.

Agreed. I like the cable and the length, but I also think the connectors
are (once again) the cheapest and worst option. I Have seen some
pictures of "STAT II" connectors. They seem better and lock into
place.

Arno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message news:cvu3ab01ev5@news4.newsguy.com
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> > Previously Bart <bdrummond@somewhere.net> wrote:
> > > I just got an Intel 865PERL mobo which uses the 865PE / ICH5R chipset.
> > > I'm trying to decide between PATA or SATA hard drives. Would SATA drives
> > > be any less reliable? I plan to have two drives but in a non-RAID configuration.
> >
> > > I've heard rumors about data corruption issues with current SATA drives.
> > > I got this observation from the following website ...
> >
> > > http://www.ata-atapi.com/sata.htm
> >
> > > "Making things worse is the failure of the SATA specification to
> > > implement an equivalent to the ATA Soft Reset. On a PATA interface Soft
> > > Reset rarely fails to get ATA/ATAPI devices back to a known state so that
> > > a command can be retried. On a SATA interface the equivalent to this
> > > reset does not seem to reset anything and at some times it is basically
> > > ignored by the SATA controller and device."
> >
> > > Any truth to this? Thanks.
> >
> > No idea. What I know is that SATA is a bit chancy under Linux. I have
> > some SATA drives running reliable with Linux, but YMMV and I might
> > just have gotten lucky. The ICH5R chipset has been supported since
> > kernel 2.4.22 and should work.
>
> There was a specific problem with Seagate drives--Seagate used an integrated
> SATA controller on the drive while everybody else was using a separate
> bridge chip--

> apparently the first cut at the standard didn't nail things
> down quite solidly enough for the two to be 100% compatible.

Or maybe the bridge chip thingies aren't but everybody else has adapted to
them so now it doesn't work with the real deal.

> >
> > I don't think SATA is inherently less reliable than PATA, it should be
> > somewhat more reliable. But it is newer, the hardware and drivers are
> > still being developed.
> >
> > Additional arguments: SATA is currently not faster than ATA but
> > often a bit more expensive.
>
> Except for (a) Raptors and (b) some models shipping with the seek algorithms
> tuned for low noise in the PATA models and maximum performance in the PATA
> models.
>
> > The SATA cables are better (not
> > really an issue with 2 drives).
>
> Whether they're "better" is debatable--they're thinner but the connectors
> are horribly fragile.
>
> > Arno