Talk:SATA

5 GiB is faster than 6 GiB apparently

In the "Comparison with other buses" section, the data rate column doesn't seem consistent on whether or not protocol overhead is included nor does it explain how data rate differs from the raw data rate. 173.67.194.81 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like life. Different people measure things in different ways for good reasons. Gah4 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Protocol list

Page doesn't list kind of communication protocol available for SATA interface like AHCI Hyoroemon2 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Add references

Location: since many of these controllers (such as the Silicon Image chips) run at 3 Gbit/s, even though the PCI bus cannot reach 1.5 Gbit/s speeds. This can cause data corruption in operating systems that do not specifically test for this condition and limit the disk transfer speed.

Source: Alan Cox (long-time Linux kernel maintainer) in a reply on the Debian-User mailing list, noting that “there are some incompatibilities between certain Silicon Image chips and Nvidia chipsets needing BIOS workarounds according to the errata docs,” which helps explain data corruption issues observed on RAID setups based on the SiI3114 controller.

URL: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2009/01/msg00323.html

Location: SCSI, SAS and fibre-channel (FC) drives are more expensive than SATA, so they are used in servers and disk arrays where the better performance justifies the additional cost.

Source: K. Chan, “A Comparison of Disk Drives for Enterprise Computing,” LOGiN: The USENIX Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2006.This article, published by USENIX—a renowned professional association for advanced computing systems research—provides a comparative analysis of enterprise storage interfaces such as SCSI, SAS, Fibre Channel, and SATA. It details their respective performance, reliability, and cost profiles, highlighting why SAS and Fibre Channel drives are favored in enterprise environments where superior performance outweighs cost.

URL: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/login/2006-06/openpdfs/chan.pdf

Location: Serial ATA industry compatibility specifications originate from the Serial ATA International Organization (SATA-IO).

Source: Garry Kranz, “What is Serial ATA? An Introduction to SATA,” TechTarget SearchStorage (2021-07-08). This article explains that the nonprofit industry group SATA-IO oversees the development of the technical specification for Serial ATA.

URL: https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/definition/Serial-ATA

Location: Before SATA’s introduction in 2000, PATA was simply known as ATA.

Source: Garry Kranz, “What is Serial ATA? An Introduction to SATA,” TechTarget SearchStorage, July 8 2021. This expert-written article provides a clear historical overview of how the original AT Attachment (ATA) interface later became designated as Parallel ATA (PATA) when the serial version (SATA) was introduced.

URL: https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/definition/Serial-ATA

Location: SATA host adapters and devices communicate via a high-speed serial cable over two pairs of conductors.

Source: Serial ATA International Organization, “Serial ATA Revision 2.5 Specification – High Speed Serialized AT Attachment” (27 October 2005). This is the official specification document from the SATA-IO consortium, which clearly defines the SATA data interconnect as using two differential signal pairs (i.e., four conductors) for the host-adapter to device communication link.

URL: https://sata-io.org/system/files/specifications/SerialATA_Revision_2_5_Gold.pdf

Location: Parallel SCSI uses a more complex bus than SATA, usually resulting in higher manufacturing costs.

Source: Steven Hill, “SATA Takes on SCSI,” Network Computing, 2005.Network Computing is a long-established enterprise IT publication known for its in-depth technical reviews and analyses of data-center, networking, and storage technologies. In this article, senior technology editor Steven Hill compares Serial ATA (SATA) and SCSI/Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) architectures, noting that the more complex, multi-drop bus design of Parallel SCSI leads to higher implementation and manufacturing costs compared with the simpler point-to-point design of SATA.

URL: https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-center-networking/sata-takes-on-scsi LogosNova (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

SATA1/2/3 differences

> Note that there is no visible difference, other than the labeling, between SATA 1, SATA 2, and SATA 3 cables and connectors.

so that's a straight up lie. SATA 1 cables didn't have the latch, they were friction-fit. SATA2/3 have the latch, but they're backwards compatible.

I can't be bothered to actually find a reference for this right now, so i'm just leaving this here. ~DomiUwU 20:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of SATA 3 cables around without a latch. There's no requirement in the standard. Calling something "a lie" without having proof or even good sources is rude. --Zac67 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

even if you're right (and you didn't provide a source for your claim either) - no SATA 1 cables had a latch. It got introduced with SATA 2. I'd assume that all latch-less cables are produced by factories which didn't upgrade their production lines;

Even without a requirement in the standard, most new cables and ports are visibly different from the old ones. So that sentence is very misleading.

I didn't mean to come off as rude; Sorry about that. This is also why I'm writing here instead of changing the page outright. ~DomiUwU 17:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)