eSATA Connectors 222
buffalocheese writes "Since the introduction of the Serial ATA 1.0a specification in 2002, many manufacturers have introduced PCI and CardBus cards with both internal and external SATA connections.
At first these internal and external connectors were completely identical, but later, external connectors started to appear which were still fully compatible with the internal sockets but featured added extra screening for external use.
With the introduction of the SATA II specification in mid 2004 a new external SATA connector was defined. These new external (eSATA) connectors are not compatible with the original internal SATA connection.
Currently there are add-on cards and drive housings available which feature both types of SATA connection for external use. Gradually the older types will disappear and all new SATA cards will feature the eSATA connector for external drive connections."
Are they better, or just different? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are they better, or just different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, you can spend a bit more to get a good, angled cable. But the free ones included with hard drives and motherboards are always annoying.
Re:Are they better, or just different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Are they better, or just different? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it's definitely more snug than a regular SATA cable, but it isn't quite as snug as USB. Still, the speed is amazing, and the cables are better IMO. The speed is definitely faster than USB.
Only catch is if I hook up a drive while in Windows with that converter, it'll lockup. Has to be turned on before I boot the computer. This is a limitation of the adapter; from what I've read, you should be able to hot swap with a "real" eSATA port.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can hotplug the thing in both Windows and Linux. Speed is twice as fast as the internal drive (according to hdparm -t). I'm thrilled with it!
Is BIOS setup for SATA and not "IDE mode?" (Score:3, Informative)
I have an eSATA external drive. My current mobo doesn't have eSATA built in, but I use it via a SATA to eSATA adapter card in my PC...
Only catch is if I hook up a drive while in Windows with that converter, it'll lockup. Has to be turned on before I boot the computer. This is a limitation of the adapter; from what I've read, you should be able to hot swap with a "real" eSATA port.
Another possible reason for your inability to hot-swap is that the SATA ports might be set to "IDE mode" in the motherboard's BIOS. This is a common setup on "home-built" computers since "IDE mode" allows pre-Vista Windows installation without the "F6 (floppy) installation method." To enable hot-swap, the SATA ports must be set to "SATA/AHCI mode" in the BIOS.
Here's some instructions from Intel's site on changing SATA modes on their motherboards:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rich
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by my opinion that connector people are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me about it. Current SATA connectors are horrible in some situations. I've actually had situations where I've had to use a glue gun to literally keep the connectors from coming off on their own.
That's utterly horrible, and damned lame.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If only everyone spent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?? I have the opposite problem. I work in a lab where we have pretty much nothing but SATA drives, and many of the most popular SATA RAID Cards (and some of the just plain expensive ones), and I frequently have to be very careful not to rip the port off of the SATA Card when removi
Re:Are they better, or just different? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a poor case design. The best way to use a SATA drive is to have NO CABLE. The drives are designed to they can be pushed onto a socket that is soldered to a printed circuit board. All new design computers should be designed this way, with no cable. Drive push into the computer from the front like SCSI drives with SCA connectors
If the computer uses a cable (for power or data) then it is a retrofit, a hold over from the IDE era. Over time internal cables should just "go away". Now you see way the connector can't be totight or have a positive retention (latch.)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that the first SATA connectors were brain-dead. For the life of me, I can't understand what the designers were thinking when they didn't include a latch. However, I never really had problems with the plugs falling off--it was just a source of neurotic worry, like whether I turned off the soldering iron after I used it last time. In any case, the advantages of the SATA cable (thin, greater maximum length than the old IDE cables, no slave/master foo) outweighed any worries about the wobbly c
locking SATA connectors (Score:2)
Intel realized this problem very early on, and by their second generation of SATA-equipped desktop motherboards, they had implemented locking connectors on the boards and included cables. This is still a standard feature on all their desktop boards. However, only one end is locking, the drive end is normal, probably because drive manufacturers haven't completely standardized the housing of their SATA connectors.
I see some other motherboard manufacturers are doing this with some models as well now. Ther
Any advantages over having only one connector? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except they want to sell me another cable - or did I miss anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, I think the industry should really standardize on something to be a 'universal' interface, like USB or Firewire for desktop systems. Let's just remove all other types of interfaces, even VGA/DVI/HDMI cables and maybe even Ethernet. By standardizing the interfaces, end users will be far less confused, the interface decided upon will be furthe
Re: (Score:2)
Universalizing also risks having people plug the wrong thing into the wrong place, unless the underlying physical and logical transport is also the same, in which case cost is an even bigger issue.
Re:Any advantages over having only one connector? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you've never actually worked with end-users. The fact that the major connectors are physically different, and therefore won't fit in the other holes no matter how hard you push, is the only reason they're sometimes plugged into the correct spot now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. e.g. With a USB device, *any* USB port is the correct one. And it makes life easier.
You've never met my mother-in-law (Score:2)
Don't assume that all phy
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out they plugged the PS/2 keyboard cable into a BNC/10base2 connector on the NIC. Fit perfectly
Good point (Score:2)
Brilliant! Unfortunately, smoke and fire was not the result. Lesson unlearned.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should join the person I replied to in spending more time among the masses; while painful, it's an excellent way to discover how things get misdesigned and misused. I've run into several devices that plug into a USB port but don't work right, typically because someone hasn't paid attention to the standard for how much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By keeping different cord types, they prevent different communications protocols from plugging into the wrong ports. For instance, the ethernet protocol and the USB protocol are not compatible. Therefore, the layman user won't accidentally plug their mouse port into
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, I think the industry should really standardize on something to be a 'universal' interface, like USB or Firewire for desktop systems. Let's just remove all other types of interfaces, even VGA/DVI/HDMI cables and maybe even Ethernet. By standardizing the interfaces, end users will be far less confused, the interface decided upon will be further commoditized and prices for cables and connectors and such will fall.
You are kidding right? Average user can barely tell the difference between these cables now and you want to make them all look the same to make it LESS confusing. It will just confuse them more. You will find the monitor plugged into the ethernet port, keyboards into the video port and hard drive plugged into the wall socked and a frustrated user going "why isn't this working?!?!?!?" I mean most people cant tell the difference between VGA and 9-pin serial port, and forget about the number of people who try
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA [wikipedia.org]
also it appears you can go to 2 meters in length with eSATA as opposed to maximum 1 meter with regular SATA cables
Re: (Score:3)
I just assembled a new system last week, and can't speak highly enough of SATA. With IDE cables, it always seemed no matter what, you always had to turn around the ribbon cable upside down to fit the hard drive or optical drive. The ribbon cable, in all its wonderful cheapness was a huge hassle to snake around a case, and had a wonderful airflow-choking design. Sometimes it's too short of a distance from the motherboard con
Re:Any advantages over having only one connector? (Score:5, Informative)
The external cable connector is a shielded version of the connector specificed in SATA 1.0a with these basic differences:
The External connector has no "L" shaped key, and the guide features are vertically offset and reduced in size. This prevents the use of unshielded internal cables in external applications.
To prevent ESD damage, the insertion depth is increased from 5mm to 6.6mm and the contacts are mounted further back in both the receptacle and plug.
To provide EMI protection and meet FCC and CE emission requirements, the cable has an extra layer of shielding, and the connectors have metal contact points.
There are springs as retention features built into the connector shield on both the top and bottom surfaces.
The external connector and cable are designed for over five thousand insertions and removals while the internal connector is only specified to withstand fifty.
They make it pretty clear exactly what's different. The biggest difference is the cable is shielded, while internal SATA is not (or less so?). And obviously the connector being rated for a hundred times more insertions is a pretty big difference.
I should note that in recent benchmarks done by MaximumPC, eSATA did not provide substantial performance benefits over Firewire800 drives. eSATA featured a higher burst speed, but more or less equivalent average transfer rates and seek times. Unless there were specific licensing issues with Firewire 800, I would rather have seen it become the preferred drive interface; I'll take a general purpose connector that I can use for other stuff over something as specific as eSATA any day, especially when eSATA provides little benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At 3GHz, it'll make a very nice antenna out of any wire - the shielding is a necessity for certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really sure? Because unless you live in a microwave oven, the opposite is much more plausible :)
Re: (Score:2)
(as FW just adds an additional layer of complexity, with the drive being sata anyways)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be... (Score:2)
- SATA drive with a small FW controller in the case
- IDE drive with a small FW controller so one can reuse all those old IDE drive to make backup / data transfer bricks
- IDE 2.4" or 16bit PC-Card or Compact Flash (basically the same stuff, with smaller mechanical connector each time)
- some proprietary internl drive format like the iPod ('cause Apple is fed up of people buy cheaper players and swaping drives)
- Pure FW drive
- Flash memory with it's own protocol and controller.
- mini serv
Re: (Score:2)
There's really not a market for putting anything but commodity drives on firewire - if performance is a concern, you'll hook SCSI, SAS or FC up to SCSI, SAS or FC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You assume that the SATA protocol has equal or better efficiency than the firewire protocol.
For example, that latency sensitivity of SATA is less than or equal to that of firewire. You might be right, you might be wrong, I don't know. You might make the same assumption about USB, in which case you would definitely be wrong - the longer your USB cable, the s
the main reason (Score:2)
does this matter? it depends! It doesn't if its for your own use and you don't have any sensitive gear arround or if you are a small fly by night firm or are just selling parts (generally standards are applied to the end product as a whole not individual parts) but any big v
Re: (Score:2)
adverstory (Score:2, Insightful)
In the classroom (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketing (Score:2)
However slashdotting an ecommerce site with an article designed to do nothing more than get a very targeted audience to a location that will sell SATA and eSATA devices is superb. It makes me wonder what the real dollar value of this "news" will translate into.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reliability ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case I spent an hour or so chasing cables that would pull out, e.g. secure it to the mobo, it would pull on the drive. It didn't help that I had 4 SATA drives at the time...
If you're so inclined you could try gluing them into the mobo, then tape it to the drive. Bonus points for using duct tape
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sales pitch [poorly] disguised as an article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LInux Hotswap Support? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shitty MB connectors (Score:2)
and it hit the cable of another drive and broke off the mb connector.
There is no "SATA II" (Score:4, Informative)
SATA II is the old name of the organisation that created the SATA standard (although I can't find what the acronym used to stand for). It has since changed its name to SATA-IO ("International Organisation") because everyone mistook the two I's as Roman numerals and assumed the newly created SATA 3Gb/s standard was "version 2" of SATA. It's not. It's just a new signalling rate and other features like NCQ are separate.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich
Multiple SATA Drives on a Single SATA Connector? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overheard at the SATA connector design meeting: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention comes in a dozen or so slightly different dimensions including some that are almost-but-not-quite the right size but work if you angle the plug.
1972: Of the Ma Bell RJ modular connectors, we will not speak. Anybody can make a mistake and make a sturdy, usable, latching connector once in a while. Luckily our agents infiltrated the factories and made the lat
Re: (Score:2)
Rich
but which controllers work in Linux (Score:2)
I've already been bitten by a SATA controller that didn't work in Linux (2.6.16 or so at the time). I got a list of chipsets that are supported by Linux (main source tree). But that doesn't help because I'm not buying chipsets ... I want to by a few controller cards. And now they need to be ones with eSATA connectors.
Patents (Score:2)
Same situation? Are these cables going to be $40 for a 2ft cable?
Is anyone here well versed on the patents on the original one and what happened to bring the prices down?
Re: (Score:2)
Curse you, Sabrent!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
ATA over Ethernet gets you at least halfway there.
http://www.pcquest.com/content/technology/2006/106 110402.asp [pcquest.com]
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8149 [linuxjournal.com]
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10880_11 -6106721.html [com.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with ethernet connected drives is that the lag is higher than that of internal drives
Ethernet over one single hop (no switching) has a latency of under 1ms. Over two cables with a switch in the middle, and adding on the overhead of IP, I get a round trip time of 0.2-0.3ms. The average seek time for a hard drive is 4-9ms. The extra latency of using ethernet would not be significant.
A lot of latency can be added by expensive protocols like SMB or NFS, but something like iSCSI can be very fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ruse to sell more motherboards (Score:5, Informative)
By contrast, PCI-Express 1x slightly increases the bandwidth from roughly 133MB/s to 150MB/s, but more importantly each device gets that, it's not shared anymore. And of course, 2x and higher slots provide more bandwidth.
But when it comes to graphics, AGP 8x was (at the time) providing more than enough bandwidth... as for the demands of modern monsterous graphics cards (such as the 8800 GTX), for all I know they might be able to saturate an AGP 8x bus.
As I understand it anyhow, the more tangible benefits from moving from AGP to PCI-Express were increase bi-directional bandwidth (AGP was great at Host->Card, but sucked at Card->Host), and increased ease with sticking multiple PCI-Express slots on the motherboard, making modern SLI possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea with PCIe is that if we are going to make a really fast interface for things like RAIDs and network interface cards we might as well replace AGP at the same time so we only have one type of slot to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
There was talk of other cards for the agp slot but they did not come out.
Re:Ruse to sell more motherboards (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ruse to sell more motherboards (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ruse to sell more motherboards (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fairly positive that it's 250 MB/sec per lane, not 150 for PCI-E.
In addition, not only is that per-device, it is per-device, per-direction (full duplex, 250MB/sec to the device and 250MB/sec back at the same time)
As to why PCI-E couldn't have been developed back when PCI or AGP were available (rather than incremental steps) - Moore's law. It simply wasn't possible to make silicon capable of handling PCI Express data rates (each lane uses serial communications at 2.5 gbits/sec, which was definately NOT possible with the silicon available back when PCI or AGP were initially developed.)
For those that wonder why PCI-E uses 2.5 Gbit/sec signaling but only transfers 250MB/sec of data, it is because all data is encoded using either 4B5B or 8B10B encoding (I can't remember which of the two), which maps every 4 data bits to 5 signal bits for 4B5B or 8-to-10 for 8B10B. This is done to ensure a minimum number of bit transitions in a given period of time, and also ensure that the signaling has no DC bias. (i.e. equal number of 0s and 1s no matter what the input data is).
Re: (Score:2)
Shared PCI was purely an implementation detail. There are many systems out there where each PCI slot is its own private PCI bus. PC's tended to use shared PCI buses because it was cheaper to implement, and most cards did not need the full bandwidth just for themselves so for the general case it was a win.
Re: (Score:2)
There were also many conflicts because of the shared bus. Who here hasn't had trouble with stuttering audio on a PCI soundcard because some other device in the bus was causing trouble?
PCI-X sol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
With your twin ground connections;
You're so down to earth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My bloody knuckles curse you
Die molex die die
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as your AGP and ddr2 gripe. AGP had reached the limit of it's functions, and PCI-express is a better standard than AGP ever was. And DDR2 is not anything to
Re: (Score:2)
No, Intel is very anti-legacy. They switched to DDR2 long before AMD did, mainly because their crappy P4 processors were more dependent on memory bandwidth (which is why
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take SATA over rounded cables any day.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
* PCI-Express: A true PCI successor at last. Back when the 3D accelerators were taking off, the PCI bus turned out to be not efficient enough, but a successor was not in sight. So, AGP was invented, which is essentially a PCI slot with accelerated CPU->GPU transfer (i.e. a hack).
* SATA: Longer, MUCH thinner cables, hotplugging functionality, lower power consumption, Native Command Queuing (the HD can rearrange requests fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the two extra SATA connectors on my Mac Pro's motherboard (presumably for SATA optical drive alternatives) connected to a backplane next to the not-double-wide video card which turns them into eSATA ports. I don't have any eSATA drives or enclosures yet, but I have the ports ready for when I back up my 1.5 TB RAID (3 * 500 GB) to another 1.5 TB RAID (2 * 750 GB
Mod parent up [was Re:Umm, blatant advertising...] (Score:2)
I mean, I know a lot of people bash Slashdot, but come on... I can't imagine this not having been paid for. Actually, this is even worse if it _wasn't_ paid for.
Either way, I'm pretty certain this isn't the kind of compelling content that will continue to bring me back here.