The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    SAS connection

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by laststop311, May 15, 2010.

  1. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do any notebooks have this hard drive connection instead of SATA
     
    laststop311, May 15, 2010
    #1
  2. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    Nope... none.
     
    sgogeta4, May 15, 2010
    #2
  3. Biosci3c

    Biosci3c Notebook Consultant NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Yeah, as far as I know, it is designed for servers.
     
    Biosci3c, May 16, 2010
    #3
  4. sean473

    sean473 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    613
    Messages:
    6,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    its for servers but K-tron's massive OCtitron has it..
     
    sean473, May 16, 2010
    #4
  5. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    kinda stupid they dont put it on laptops. Much better connection.
     
    laststop311, May 17, 2010
    #5
  6. Biosci3c

    Biosci3c Notebook Consultant NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    It's probably not optimized for laptops. It is basically the enterprise version of SATA, just like SCSI was the enterprise version of PATA (correct me if I am wrong).
     
    Biosci3c, May 17, 2010
    #6
  7. Judicator

    Judicator Judged and found wanting.

    Reputations:
    1,098
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Simple answer? Price. An SAS host bus is much more expensive than a SATA one, and for most people that don't need server class reliability and multiple I/O, there's no reason to go for the much higher expense.
     
    Judicator, May 17, 2010
    #7
  8. newsposter

    newsposter Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    801
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Tell us exactly how sas is better than sata in a single user environment, please.....
     
    newsposter, May 17, 2010
    #8
  9. Judicator

    Judicator Judged and found wanting.

    Reputations:
    1,098
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    56
    You have them a little mixed. SATA is the successor to PATA, and SAS is the successor to SCSI (SAS is actually Serial Attached SCSI). Note that both are essentially movements away from a parallel bus to a point to point high speed serial connection.
     
    Judicator, May 17, 2010
    #9
  10. Biosci3c

    Biosci3c Notebook Consultant NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    84
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ah, thanks for the clarification.
     
    Biosci3c, May 18, 2010
    #10
  11. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sas is 6gbps thats why its better
     
    laststop311, May 18, 2010
    #11
  12. newsposter

    newsposter Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    801
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    numbers, numbers, numbers...

    why, in operational terms, is sas better than sata

    also, show me a sas drive that actually runs at interface speed and how that compares to a sata drive running at a similar speed.

    Quoting spec sheets is no way to justify expense.
     
    newsposter, May 18, 2010
    #12
  13. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    And SATA/600 is also 6Gbps... SAS can also be limited to 3Gbps depending on chipset.
     
    sgogeta4, May 18, 2010
    #13
  14. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well the 6 gbps speed is only gonna matter with an SSD drive cause yeah regular hard drives dont even max out the 3 gbps. Obviously if SATA was just as good as SAS then there would be no reason for important computers to use SAS.
     
    laststop311, May 18, 2010
    #14
  15. newsposter

    newsposter Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    801
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Even ssd drives don't begin to saturate a 3 or 6 gb data buss. not even 25% of the buss capabilities.

    still no hard information. 'just as good' doesn't begin to describe the differences between sata and sas (or even older parallel scsi).
     
    newsposter, May 18, 2010
    #15
  16. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually the Crucial realSSD does max out SATA/300 and can utilize the extra bandwidth of sata/600 not all of it but it can use more then sata/300 can provide.

    I dont know the exact differences I thought SAS was 6Gbps no matter what and SATA/600 was just starting to catch up. But like I said if SATA was equal in performance to SAS then High performance servers wouldnt bother to spend the extra money on a SAS controller so it obviously is doing something better then SATA
     
    laststop311, May 18, 2010
    #16
  17. newsposter

    newsposter Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    801
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    you still don't know anything about SAS and persist in comparing raw interface numbers as if those were the only, or even the best measure of performance.

    better quit before you get too far behind, never mind about catching up.
     
    newsposter, May 18, 2010
    #17
  18. laststop311

    laststop311 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    224
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    idc if high performance server use it then i want it on my laptop. I love spending tons of money on my laptop so dont care about cost as u can see in my sig spent well over 3 grand for that set up.
     
    laststop311, May 18, 2010
    #18
  19. fzhfzh

    fzhfzh Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    289
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    You are going to be surprised at how much more you are going to be spending for a SAS port and SAS drive. SAS is not meant for single user environments and you are not going to get much more (if any) advantages out of it compared to a sata 2/3.
     
    fzhfzh, May 18, 2010
    #19
  20. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    While technically true, this only applies to sequential R/W speeds which doesn't have much bearing to majority of users. Random R/W speeds don't even saturate SATA/150, which is what is most noticeable (aside from access time).
     
    sgogeta4, May 18, 2010
    #20