Need a PCI -> SATA Card...Which one?

[dude_56013]

So, if anyone has read the thread, I'm setting up a server. Well, I'm working with older technology in the core system, so I need a SATA card. However, there is a BIG difference in price between SATA I and SATA II speed cards. There's probably a BIG performance difference in a SERVER between 1.5GB/s and 3.0GB/s, so I'm guessing I need to go with SATA II. It does NOT need to be RAID, but I guess that's fine. I'm just not sure what to do. I mean, if I have to spend freaking $60-70 for a SATA card, I might as well buy a new motherboard and CPU.

Let me know what you all think.

 

[63083]

While my experience with servers is limited, I'll do my best to explain what I can.

When it comes to difference in speed, the difference in speed is not as drastic as you might think. And depending on what the primary use of the server is, the more or less of an importance is. If you were using the servers as a game hosting server, then you would want to use SATA II to ensure you clients were getting the game info fast enough and didn't decide to go to another server. But if the server is meant for steaming and copying live video, the importance of speed is even less so..

And the choice to upgrade the motherboard and CPU is completely up to you... again provided that the server isn't being used as a gaming client. But just for the sake of well...because...i would upgrade.

 

[dude_56013]

Well, I just figured, if I was going to have to buy a SATA card (because the old system I'm gunna use for the server only has IDE and I'll be using a SATA HDD for file and video transfer; no gaming, btw)...if one was going to cost $70, then I figured I would have enough to buy a new freakin' MB (that has SATA) and a CPU. That's what I meant by all of that.

So basically, what it comes down to, is that the throughput of my network isn't going to be 1.5GB/s anyways, so why go with 3.0GB/s, right? (is that essentially what you mean?)

 

[63083]

Well, I just figured, if I was going to have to buy a SATA card (because the old system I'm gunna use for the server only has IDE and I'll be using a SATA HDD for file and video transfer; no gaming, btw)...if one was going to cost $70, then I figured I would have enough to buy a new freakin' MB (that has SATA) and a CPU. That's what I meant by all of that.

So basically, what it comes down to, is that the throughput of my network isn't going to be 1.5GB/s anyways, so why go with 3.0GB/s, right? (is that essentially what you mean?)

Yes, that is what I meant. Thank for clarifying what I meant for you.

 

[dude_56013]

It's okay. It was actually on my mind when I wrote the post, but I kinda needed someone to help me out with it. I was thinking that my network has a max of 1000MB/s (or maybe it's Mb?...I know there's a difference between MB and Mb) which would be 1.0GB/s, so the need for 3.0GB/s wouldn't matter much UNLESS I was using it on the home computer (for instance, if I was installing it to use ON that computer AND USING that computer NOT as a server, then it might make a difference). But since my network is going to cap the speed anyways, it won't matter much.

 

[63083]

Yeah, if your network is going to camp the speeds, then I see no need to spend anymore than you have to.

 

[dude_56013]

Thanks. And gratz on 2K!

 

[63083]

Thanks. And gratz on 2K!

Np, and thanks.

 

[Mutant Corn]

You could probably even get away with PATA if it was Ultra 133...that's 1Gb/s, which isn't too far behind SATA. Doesn't allow a lot of storage space though.

 

[dude_56013]

So, I just remembered that my grandparents' computer (mine, but one they are using) has SATA ports (it's an old 775 with a P4 3.0GHz). I'm just going to swap that with the one that I've got that isn't much different...might be a 478, but it's still pretty high GHz, and it'll still have 4GB of RAM (way overkill, might keep a stick). They just use it for internet anyways, so they won't care. Well, this was a delightful surprise. Now I don't have to pick up a SATA card. Woot me!