Apparently not. IIRC, code used to control the storage function was also modified, but I don't know the details.
Jim
We got a presentation from Seagate and Western Digital this week on the enterprise usage of these new 10TB drives at our technology forum and they still meet the same SATA spec as all SATA drives.
There is no discernable difference (except for actual READ/WRITE performance and controller enhancements) between SATA revision version 3.0 that came out in 2008 and SATA revision version 3.3 that came out in 2016. Platters get more dense, but the underlying IO is still the same just speed and size differences. Even controller differences still have to meet the SATA spec to use the drives; there is no way around that. There is nothing in these new drives that prevents backward compatibility other than K choosing not to offer these drives for use outside of the new 1U+ configuration. A 3.5" SATA drive consumes 6.5 to 9W (max). This has been and continues to be the consistent case for all certified SATA drives. So, not even power is an issue. (this is controlled by the spec not HDD manufacturers). If you are certified, you meet the spec.
We just put five new 10TB drives in a dirt old Dell PowerEdge 300 server in our data center for testing and it boots fine, formats fine, but merely moves at the older data bus' speed, but the capacity is fully usable.
Just a little confused as to why we'd try to make this more technical than it is. It's understandable that K wants to continue to sell premiere systems since the mass entry into Encore and their interoperability with older premiere systems has yet to materialize; they have to have a solid money maker somewhere right? But to say the drives are incompatible is a stretch, and doesn't meet technical muster. K hasn't really released an official reason (that I know of) - and probably won't since nothing short of "we just decided we won't be offering these for older systems" makes sense.
Directly from Wiki (Serial_ATA):
"The designers of SATA aimed for backward and forward compatibility with future revisions of the SATA standard." ...
"SATA 3 Gbit/s and SATA 6 Gbit/s are compatible with each other."
...
"SATA 1.5 Gbit/s and SATA 6 Gbit/s are compatible with each other."
I know, I know, I'm always the rabble rouser. But truth is truth. I won't argue if the truth is actually stated. But perceptions and assumptions are dangerous and cost companies money (K can't afford that). Present the facts or state its an assumption.
Now, to be clear, this is no attack on Jim; he's a great guy and tries to "interpret" K's non-statements consistently. I'm just presenting clear technical facts about the backward compatibility of SATA drives.
Food for thought
Lastly, I do intend to trade in my 3Us for 1U+s as soon as the process is announced.