Talk:Serial ATA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
July 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

SATA connectors & lock-types[edit]

There are two different lock-types:

TAP type

Do anyone know if the TAP-type is only for 3Gbps and the metal-hook is for 6Gbps.

Is it "voluntary" for HDD manufacturer to choose which to use?

E.g. Seagate BarraCuda Pro 2.5" only support the TAP-type. i.e. using the METAL-hook will not lock the connector.

I would like to update the main-page with this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalvinTheMan (talkcontribs) 09:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have definitely encountered the metal hook type before SATA 6Gbps was a thing. Same thing for sockets that either did or did not latch onto the hook. I can't remember for sure if I ever encountered the metal hook before SATA 3 Gbps became a thing. I think it's just variation unrelated to the revision of the standard. The plug without metal hook is definitely a lot cheaper to manufacture.Digital Brains (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Backward compatibility[edit]

  • SATA 3: "It is backward compatible with SATA 3 Gbit/s."

OK, it is compatible with SATA 2. But, is it backward compatible with SATA 1 of 1,5Gbit/s?

The article doensn't specify.

--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added 1.5 Gbit/s to that sentence as the now changed source states "backward compatibility with earlier SATA implementations will be maintained". But the fact itself was already mentioned in the article in the section Backward and forward compatibility. Digital Brains (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SATA 3.2 speeds[edit]

I removed the claim from the article that with SATA 3.2, speeds of 16 Gbit/s or 1969 MB/s are possible. It is my opinion that this is not SATA but PCI-e. If we look at how the source puts it:

Initially introduced in January 2013, the SATA Express specification enables a client storage ecosystem that allows SATA and PCIe solutions to coexist. A host implemented to this specification will connect to and function with either a SATA or PCIe storage device. PCIe technology enables increased interface speeds of up to 2GB/s (2 lanes of PCIe 3.0), compared with today’s SATA technology at 0.6GB/s (6Gb/s)

It seems clear to me that they are not claiming that SATA reaches 2 GB/s, but that such hosts support both SATA at 600 MB/s and PCI-e at 2 GB/s. Granted, the cabling is identical (well, doubled), but it seems wrong to claim SATA reaches such speeds. For reference, the edits introducing it are this and this and this.

As an afterthought, I've reintroduced the 1969 MB/s figure back into the paragraph rather than the title. By the way, I love how originally the paragraph linked to the later section Serial ATA#SATA Express with the description "a more detailed summary"; progressively ever more detailed summaries until you end up at the complete specification, hehehe ;). Digital Brains (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SATA Express is SATA (as per spec). It uses the PCIe PHY to transfer SATA commands. PCIe cannot directly drive block storage without a higher-level protocol like NVMe or SATA. However, the speed figure later on is much better now, thx. --Zac67 (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Actual speeds?[edit]

I'm just doing a disk copy, using SATAII, Win7, 8TB drives: I'm getting 10MB/s, not 100MB/s. It will go up to 20MB/s later, when it gets to larger files.

The article would perhaps benefit from just a line, noting that actual application speeds may be much lower than the rated speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)