PATA vs. SATA
Originally Posted by G-Omaha
The tests and the results are as I would expect when unequal drives are compared. A more comprehensive test would be to test dual 60 GB 5,400rpm SATA drives to dual 60 GB 7,200rpms PATA drives. The increased arial density of the 80 GB drives reduces the transfer rate associated with the drive (regardless of the spindle speeds - rpm). So - is the SATA RAID-0 really faster than the PATA RAID-0 WHEN BOTH DRIVE SIZES ARE THE SAME? I still think that the 5,400rpm units would be slower if the test were not biased by using a mismatched configuration.
How about another test on this comparing "Apples to Apples".
PATA: Two drives SHARE one controller. Only one drive can read or write at a time. It's not as efficient as a result.
SATA: One drive - One controller. Dedicated resources. Both can read and write at the same time. It's more efficient. Slightly faster throughput is the end result.
This is particularly important with RAID 0 (trying to read and write from two drives simultaneously), and is also one reason why SCSI has historically been used for RAID. (SCSI can read and write all components simultaneously. There are other reasons to use SCSI, but let's not go there, shall we?
As a side note, and even though it's not asked here
, the "only one drive has access" issue is why you should put your HDD on one PATA controller, and your ODD (CD/RW, DVD/RW, etc.) on the second PATA controller. One controller for each means they can both read and write simultaneously.