There seems to be some confusion in the NGs about eSATA.

The most prominant features of eSATA are the longer cable
length (up to 2 meters), the cable's shielding, and the plug to
accomodate the shielding. eSATA can be used with external
adapters for both desktop PCs and laptops, and external
enclosures are available that have their own power modules
and cooling fans.

Here are some links to representative info:

Silicon Image white paper on eSATA:
https://www.sata-io.org/docs/Externa...WP%2011-09.pdf

SIIG product offerrings in eSATA:
http://siig.com/productlist.asp?catid=80

SIIG PCIe/eSATA card:
http://siig.com/product.asp?catid=7&pid=1018

eSATA back panel adapter brackets:
http://www.firewire-1394.com/externa...-solutions.htm

eSATA cables:
http://www.firewire-1394.com/sata-cables-shielded.htm

eSATA external enclosures by Kingwin:
http://kingwin.com/jt35ebk.asp
http://kingwin.com/jt35eubk.asp

Use the model nos. and the usual search engines for current prices,
i.e. NexTag.com, PriceWatch.com, PriceGrabber.com,
Froogle.Google.com, etc.


*TimDaniels*

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message news:45f82fef$0$28169$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
Not in this group, unless you want to start it with this.
So why only posted to this group?

Representative, my ass.

Surely there is more than SIIG.
Obviously you are spamming for SIIG.

Well, those are obviously not eSATA.

Of which only the last one is eSATA.

Unfortunately it doesn't say whether it has an eSATA to SATA bridge or not.
"Interface: E-SATA Only" suggests that there is only an eSATA connector.
Want to point us out to eSATA diskdrives?

Previously Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
I had not noticed...?

Arno

"Folkert Rienstra" tried his best:
Q.E.D. on your confusion.


Because you're here, Rod.


Your ass is irrelevent, Rod.


Very funny. Not so clever, though, Rod.


You have to extract your head and read the page, Rod.


Two of the three cable types involve eSATA, Rod.


You are really dumb, Rod.

*TimDaniels*

"Arno Wagner" wrote:
Look around.

*TimDaniels*

On Mar 15, 1:25 am, "Timothy Daniels" <TDani...@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
OK, I'd like to know more about eSATA so here are a few questions.

Regular USB/Firewire enclosures require a bridge chip to translate
between the interfaces. Since eSATA is native, I assume such a bridge
chip would be needed? Is the only difference the connector? In which
case the enclosure would just need a simple connection between the
eSATA and SATA connector on the host/device side. Or, are there some
other difference such as signalling level that need an IC to take care
of?

How is power usually supplied for 2.5" eSATA enclosures? I've seen
some use USB power(probably a Y cable for more current) but since an
unconfigured USB device can only draw 100mA, doesn't the enclosure
have to enumerate before it gets the full 500mA? If so wouldn't
another USB chip be needed?

"galapogos" wrote:
According to the Silicon Image white paper on eSATA,
the differences between SATA and eSATA are:

1) the cable and its connectors,
2) the higher signal levels needed to accomodate
the longer cable, and
3) the shielding and grounding requirements for the
external enclosure and the hard disk drive.

The white paper implies that with an eSATA cable of
1 meter or less, the SATA control chips should work.
The brackets listed as "SATA Internal-to-External Bracket"
should do the job in such a case:
http://www.firewire-1394.com/externa...-solutions.htm

The white paper also mentions SATA/eSATA signal level
adapters on PCI cards for cable lengths up to 2 meters.
These currently are made by SIIG and probably others.

As far as I can see, Kingwin doesn't make eSATA enclosures
for 2.5" SATA hard drives. For 3.5" SATA hard drives,
the Kingwin website lists a plug-in power "adapter", i.e.
power supply module, for its eSATA enclosures. The
eSATA enclosures for 3.5" hard drives are models:
JT-35E-BK, JT-35EU-BK, KH-350SE-BK, and the
KH-350SEU-BK.

I'd not use USB power for a 3.5" hard drive. I don't know
about 2.5" hard drives powered by USB. For reliability of
any external hard drive, I'd want a cooling fan and a dedicated
power supply.

*TimDaniels*

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message news:45fa3698$0$27029$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
The white paper no good to you, huh.

Right Timmy, so where are the drives with eSata signal drivers?

So Timmy, where are the drives with eSata signal drivers?

So Timmy, does it pay well to be a Kingwin shill?

No kidding: Like you could.

There isn't much that you really know, is there, Timmy.
Just some pretend loudmouth showoff kiddy.

On 15 Mar 2007, Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:


I see you.

"Folkert Rienstra" , aks Rod Speed, croaked:

So who needs 'em? You're too hung up on specs and
published standards to move your bowels without a manual,
Rod.

*TimDaniels*

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Rita,

You obviously know your stuff - but shouldn't you open your mind to the
overall picture?

Not everyone can enjoy (for financial reasons, mainly) the security of
SCSI or SAS...


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

Odie Ferrous wrote:

LOL!

Is that sarcasm?

or at least stop trolling?

Previously Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I seem to remember some recent publication that demonstrated
that while SCSI is delivering better speeds, reliability to comparable
IDE/SATA. By now I would say that matches my experience. Maybe
the perceived reliability edge of SCSI is mainly due to SCSI
being often operated in better environmental conditions
(air-conditioned server rooms, e.g.). With the about 40 Maxtor
drives (not reliable drives in ordinary conditions), I have
had reliably (one real failure, the otherfailed drives were dropped
in transport) run for > 3 years now in a climate controlled server
room, this matches my personal experience. In the same time
there was 1 SCSI disk loss in a Sun servers in the same
server room, woith about 15 or so SCSI siosk in Suns there.

Of course that is not enough for a real statistical statement,
but at least to me suggestive.

Arno

"Arno Wagner" wrote:
That's not a complete sentence. What did the publication
say?

*TimDaniels*

Previously Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
Clearer now?

Arno

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message news:45fec225$0$5216$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
Not enough time in a day for a babblebot.
You never know when the next brainfarct hits. (Oops, too late)

Like your bowels care, Timmy.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:3c6tv217loqmjugqjplhc19aogbf3slvsd@4ax.com
No, just one troll's obvious admiration for another one.

Hell no. To encourage it, of course.

"Arno Wagner" wrote:

Yup. Did the article say that the comparison was made
under the same load conditions?

*TimDaniels*

Previously Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:

I really don't know. Its several papers actually, referenced here:

http://storagemojo.com/?p=383

I also don't know whether they examined reliability per byte, which
would put SCSI at a disadvantage, since the disks are smaller in
general.

But my conclusion for the moment is that there is no estabished
''truth'' and that the market needs to be watched. Also that, like
before, the only thing that can give you reliability is redundancy,
in the form of RAID, remote mirroring and backups.

Arno