Sata and Data Corruption

"Ron Reaugh" wrote in news:mGTlc.34994$Xj6.592418
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the run
length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?

It wasn't a point. It was a question. There is more than one way to reduce
the effects of outside noise in a cable. A shield is one, a specific pattern
of cable winding is another. I was asking if either are used in making SATA
cables or if either are part of the spec.

I know some vendors make sheilded SATA cables. But I don't know if anyone
uses a specific winding pattern for SATA. And, I don't know if either are
part of the spec. Also I was asking how SATA compares to SAS and SSA. Last
time I worked with SSA was 3 years ago on some RS6000s. At the time, the
cables were not sheilded. I don't know if that's still the case or not.
These are the questions I was asking.

"Mr. Grinch" wrote in message
3.159...
"Ron Reaugh" wrote in news:mGTlc.34994$Xj6.592418
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


SATA clocks at 1.5GHz. If two adjacent cables have identical twist, you
can
expect crosstalk. CAT5 has a different twist on each cable, avoiding
this
problem.


And what is the run length spec of gigabit ethernet? And what is the
run
length spec for an SATA cable? Now what was your point?

It wasn't a point. It was a question. There is more than one way to
reduce
the effects of outside noise in a cable. A shield is one, a specific
pattern
of cable winding is another. I was asking if either are used in making
SATA
cables or if either are part of the spec.

Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.

In case you didn't realize my post was not to one of your posts and your
snips have subverted your post(corrected).

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:



Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.


Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:



Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.


Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

Cables are not the issue.

wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:



Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.


Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results, he
does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he concludes
that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be anything from
buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility that it could be
an artifact of his test procedure.

In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
it may or may not be related to the cable design.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:54:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:



Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.


Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results, he
does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he concludes
that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be anything from
buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility that it could be
an artifact of his test procedure.

In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
it may or may not be related to the cable design.

I've read enough complaints of data corruption with SATA that I'd
assume there are problems somewhere. What they are and how they're
fixed is what I'd like to know. If this guy is so wrong, I'd expect
some url's to the test reports showing he's a wacko. Surly it's not
too hard to test cables for data corruption and show they work. Or
test effects of SATA commands or lack of them.

wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:54:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:49:59 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote:



Neither are significant in a cable the length of SATA cables.


Then you are saying there are absolutely no issues with the SATA
cables and commands as suggested on that website ?

It's more a matter of the web site contains one guy's opinion supported by
data from an application that he is attempting to sell, so there is the
question of conflict of interest. He reports only the software results,
he does not report data from any kind of electronic test, and yet he
concludes that the problem is due to cabling when in fact it could be
anything from buggy silicon to firmware, not to mention the possibility
that it could be an artifact of his test procedure.

In other words there may or may not be a problem and if there is a problem
it may or may not be related to the cable design.

I've read enough complaints of data corruption with SATA that I'd
assume there are problems somewhere.

Where did you read these complaints?

What they are and how they're
fixed is what I'd like to know.

You mean these "complaints" you read did not say what data was corrupted nor
in what manner?

If this guy is so wrong, I'd expect
some url's to the test reports showing he's a wacko.

(a) Who said he's "wrong"? He may be right. But one should not assume that
a single individual's opinion is authoritative.
(b) "Showing he's a whacko" would require a fairly extensive effort which is
only likely to be conducted by someone with an axe to grind or someone with
a large budget and nothing to spend it on.

Surly it's not
too hard to test cables for data corruption and show they work.

You can't prove a negative. It's easy to test them and show that they don't
work. It is not so easy to test them and prove that they will work
reliably under all concievable circumstances.

Or
test effects of SATA commands or lack of them.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting here.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're suggesting here.

Yeah, I can tell from your response. Sounds like an echo or
something