SATA II RAID 0 vs single SATA III for HD editing

[olson]

The speed of the interface is irrelevant because modern disks have not even breached the limitations of the original SATA interface. To get 260 MB/s sustained sequential read count on needing a minimum of three modern 7200 RPM SATA disks in RAID 0. The more the better!

[meleseDESIGN]

Short=Yes, if your board has at least an SATA 2 controller on board (most recent boards have)!

;)


Could a single 2TB SATA 3 drive on the appropriate board reach these speeds?

[evanfotis]

Aren't SATA3 disks faster than SATA2 ones, so in conjunction with a sata3 interface it could reach these speeds?

[meleseDESIGN]

Yes, they are (600MB/s) double as fast as SATA 2 disks.
SATA Rev. 2.0 HDDs offering 300MB/s when using them on an SATA 2 Controller.
You wont have any issues connecting an SATA Rev. 3.0 HDD to an SATA 2 Controller, they are downwards compatible.

;)


Aren't SATA3 disks faster than SATA2 ones, so in conjunction with a sata3 interface it could reach these speeds?

[dmeyer]

Yes, they are (600MB/s) double as fast as SATA 2 disks.
SATA Rev. 2.0 HDDs offering 300MB/s when using them on an SATA 2 Controller.
You wont have any issues connecting an SATA Rev. 3.0 HDD to an SATA 2 Controller, they are downwards compatible.

;)

SATA 3 interface speed theoretical capacity is around 600MB/S but I have never seen a single drive, SATA 2 or SATA 3 sustain anything over about 100MB or 120MB/s - unless we are talking SSDs.

The OP is going to need at least 3 HDD's in RAID 0 to get consistent 260 MB/s. If you run them over SATA2 you'll have to run them over 2 or preferably 3 channels. If you run them over SATA3 you could get away with running all of them over 1 channel. How well your controller deals with this may differ however.

[olson]

Yes, they are (600MB/s) double as fast as SATA 2 disks.
SATA Rev. 2.0 HDDs offering 300MB/s when using them on an SATA 2 Controller.
You wont have any issues connecting an SATA Rev. 3.0 HDD to an SATA 2 Controller, they are downwards compatible.

;)

That's just the interface bandwidth, not how fast the heads can read data from the platter. No way a single disk can push 600 MB/s anytime soon. The original SATA specification maxes at 150 MB/s which 99% of the disks out there can't do anyway. Seems like SATA III is a bit premature, and irrelevant in this case. Like I said before, count on a minimum of three modern SATA disks (1TB+ because higher density means higher throughput at the same RPM). Cheers!

EDIT: This is the fastest SATA disk out there that I know of, and it barely reaches 150 MB/s peak (average is less).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-velociraptor-600gb,2600-5.html

[meleseDESIGN]

Oops!, of course at least 3 SATA HDD's in RAID 0.
Thanks for correcting me!

;)


SATA 3 interface speed theoretical capacity is around 600MB/S but I have never seen a single drive, SATA 2 or SATA 3 sustain anything over about 100MB or 120MB/s - unless we are talking SSDs.

The OP is going to need at least 3 HDD's in RAID 0 to get consistent 260 MB/s. If you run them over SATA2 you'll have to run them over 2 or preferably 3 channels. If you run them over SATA3 you could get away with running all of them over 1 channel. How well your controller deals with this may differ however.

[meleseDESIGN]

Oops!, of course at least 3 SATA HDD's in RAID 0.
Thanks for correcting me!

;)



That's just the interface bandwidth, not how fast the heads can read data from the platter. No way a single disk can push 600 MB/s anytime soon. The original SATA specification maxes at 150 MB/s which 99% of the disks out there can't do anyway. Seems like SATA III is a bit premature, and irrelevant in this case. Like I said before, count on a minimum of three modern SATA disks (1TB+ because higher density means higher throughput at the same RPM). Cheers!

EDIT: This is the fastest SATA disk out there that I know of, and it barely reaches 150 MB/s peak (average is less).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd6000hlhx-velociraptor-600gb,2600-5.html

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.