BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

SATA vs ATA (EIDE)

Subject: SATA vs ATA (EIDE)
From: dsr at tao.merseine.nu (dsr at tao.merseine.nu)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:36:13 -0400
In-reply-to: <19267.24.91.171.78.1156852302.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>
References: <19267.24.91.171.78.1156852302.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com>

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 07:51:42AM -0400, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion about which one is better? Interface and I/O
> speed? DMA? Compatibility with Linux?

The only concern I've had is that older kernels (2.4) generally
don't have much SATA support. Building new boxes with Debian and
SLES10, I've had no complaints at all.

-dsr-


-- 
-. ---   -- --- .-. .   ... . -.-. .-. . - ... 
..-. ..- -.-. -.-   - .... .   -. ... .- 
..-.   ..-   -.-. -.   .-. -..   - .... ...   ..-   -.- -. .--   -.-. -..


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

References:
- SATA vs ATA (EIDE)
  - From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)

Prev by Date: Web Site Monitoring service - any suggestion
Next by Date: SATA vs ATA (EIDE)
Previous by thread: SATA vs ATA (EIDE)
Next by thread: SATA vs ATA (EIDE)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org