Ultra ATA100/133 [Archive]

superklye

07-29-04, 10:38 AM

Is there really that big of a difference? If I were to have, say, two 160GB 8MB cache 7200RPM HDDs...would there be any noticeable difference at all?

I've always kind of scoffed at the notion of having an ATA100 drive in my machine (all my HDDs are 8mb cache, 7200RPM, ATA133 drives except for the 15GB that failed this morning) but I guess I realized that I don't know if that scoffing is really necessary.

superklye

07-30-04, 10:22 PM

*bump*

Knell2

07-31-04, 02:51 AM

I am no expert on this(never used a raid before) but I always love to make a little assumption thetheoretically.

From the numbers ATA133 might not help much on average single 7200rpm 8mb HD than ATA100. Even ATA100 is plenty for a single 7200rpm HD. However with 2 7200rpm HDs(raid) running, we should start to see ATA100 under heavy load while ATA133 still has more headroom.

K enough of my BS. Someone should jump in now with first hand experience and real data. :lol2:

Riptide

07-31-04, 08:08 AM

I highly doubt anyone would notice the difference between ATA100 and ATA133.