What to upgrade on PC?

[mcseguy9]

So I am getting ready to replace a PC with a better setup and I'm thinking about ways to use this old PC as a server. It has an AMD AthlonXP 1.7 GHz processor in it, a 1 GB stick of RAM, and the mobo is an ASUS A7V8X-X. I was thinking of turning it into a file and print server by adding some storage to it. It natively supports EIDE hard drives. Is it worth it to add hardware to it that will allow it to utilize SATA drives, even if only SATA 1.5? It appears the cost of the drives (from 250 GB up to 400 or 500 GB) aren't that different if you go between EIDE and SATA. What do you think? Part of me wants to go with the newer technology, but I don't know if that's just the geek side of me coming out. Let me know what you think.

[SuperSparks]

I think it would only be worth adding an SATA controller card if you feel that you are likely to want to re-use the SATA drives in ano6ther PC at a later date. Otherwise the difference in performance is not worth bothering with - the only improvement is in the burst transfer rate (ie the bit of data that is stored in the drives cache). The sustained data rate is governed mainly by the rotational speed of the platters and is the same on SATA and PATA drives. Unless you go for a WD Raptor anyway - they spin at 10,000 RPM.

[mcseguy9]

Thanks for the info. That's pretty much what I was thinking, too. There didn't really seem to be a point in going with SATA unless I plan to reuse the drive in another PC at a later date.

You mentioned something interesting. Speed wise, is the difference between SATA and PATA minimal unless you are referencing the burst transfer rate, or does a SATA 3.0 provide marked performance improvement over a PATA drive at the same RPM's?

[SuperSparks]

At the same RPMs the sustained transfer rate is identical, and is roughly equavalent to ATA 45 speeds. The one area where there is a big advantage of SATA over PATA is if you want to access more than one drive at the same time, you can do that up to the maximum rate of the controllers (300Gb/sec in the case of SATA 2). PATA controllers, on the other hand, can cause a seevere bottleneck when accessing multiple drives, especially ones on the same channel.

[mcseguy9]

Thanks again for the info. So let's look at this from a home server perspective. Let's say the server is used for file storage (music, documents, images, etc.). It really sounds like SATA is overkill or at least unnecessary if the system doesn't already support it natively. It seems to me that PATA is sufficient. Unless, of course, I anticipate wanting to use the huge 400 GB or 500 GB drive that I plan to put into this home file/print server in another computer later on. That one thing right there - the size of the drive - makes me want to go to SATA, but that is the only reason now that I am considering it, after the info that you have given me. Does that make sense, and what is your opinion on this (what might you do in the same situation)?

[SuperSparks]

I understand exactly what you mean. I think that if you are definitely intending to re-use the drive, then you should go for the SATA drive - a controller card can be had for $15, and there is certainly no downside to SATA.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...NE&N=0&Ntk=all

[mcseguy9]

I do belieev that if I buy a 400-500 GB hard drive I will eventually use it in another system, so as you recommend I should go with SATA for that drive. Thanks for all of your help and advice.

[SuperSparks]

You're very welcome