Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers
Thread started 04 Jan 2011 (Tuesday) 19:20
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

USB3 versus SATAII

 
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Jan 04, 2011 19:20 |  #1

Drobo released a firmware update to the Drobo S which now supports USB3.

I'm using sSATA and wonder how USB3 would compare.

Any thoughts ?


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
macroshooter1970's Avatar
7,491 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Arizona
Jan 04, 2011 19:30 |  #2

SATA - 1.5Gb
SATA 2 - 3Gb
SATA 3 - 6Gb
USB 2 - 480Mb
USB 3 - 5Gb




LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Jan 04, 2011 19:46 |  #3

Thanks but....

I'm not sure that USB3 can actually reach those transfer speeds. Much like USB2, the reality might be much different than the paper specs.

Anybody using USB3 and hard drives ?


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
macroshooter1970
Cream of the Crop
macroshooter1970's Avatar
7,491 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Arizona
Jan 04, 2011 20:00 |  #4

In the real world things are different :), paper does make things look good though.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Sp1207
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2010
Right Behind You
Jan 04, 2011 20:29 |  #5

If you're not using an SSD it won't matter. I might take SATA because I feel it's more reliable for SMART monitoring.


Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
bohdank's Avatar
14,060 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Montreal, Canada
Jan 04, 2011 20:30 |  #6

I found a few reviews/tests and it's about the same as eSATA, some things slightly better, others slightly worse. eSATA being slower than SATA.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographerexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Joined Nov 2008
California
Jan 05, 2011 00:40 |  #7

From what I've seen, sometimes it's faster than eSATA, sometimes worse, and not fast enough to be worth switching to from eSATA...and SATA is faster than eSATA, so might as well stick with it.

edit: from hereexternal link, at the bottom—

COUNTERPOINT
by Chris Karr, Director, Software/Firmware Engineering of the Branded Products Group at Western Digital Corporation (and previous author of SpeedTools (QuickBench, ZoneBench, etc.),

I read your article and have some feedback about your Key Insight #1. I strongly disagree that USB 3.0 is slower than eSATA, per se. eSATA is limited to 3 Gb/sec whereas USB 3.0 is a 5 Gb/sec interface. They both use 8b/10b encoding so they are both 80% efficient on paper. (Transport protocol overhead further reduces real world data transfer rates and this overhead varies by bus interface type.) We expect USB 3.0 to be able to crack 400 Megabinary bytes per second (MiB/sec) with the right setup. eSATA will likely never crack 275 MiB/sec unless/until they move to 6 Gb.

The limiting factor with USB 3.0 storage devices to date has been the 3 Gb SATA backend of the first generation of USB 3.0 to SATA bridge chips. The 3 Gb SATA interface limits the potential of the 5 Gb Superspeed USB interface. Plus, converting from SATA protocol to USB protocol adds a bit of additional overhead.

That said, there are two basic approaches to actually deliver max speed over USB SuperSpeed with a bridged SATA solution, neither of which, to my knowledge, have yet been done:
1) Put two 3 Gb SATA ports on the back end of the USB bridge and connect two SATA devices which can saturate both of the SATA busses (think two SandForce-based SSD's in a RAID 0).
2) Make a bridge chip with a USB 3.0 front end and a 6 Gb SATA backend and stuff a 500 MiB/sec enterprise-class 6 Gb SSD or RAM drive behind it.

You will need a very powerful PCI bus (aka Gen 2 running off north-bridge, etc.) to get the best numbers, but we believe USB 3.0 can reach at least 400 MiB/sec once the other system bottlenecks are resolved. Of course, with a single HDD all this comparison stuff doesn’t mean much because they just aren’t fast enough to be meaningfully bottlenecked by either SATA or SuperSpeed USB.

Lastly, look for well-designed integrated USB 3.0 host controllers coming in the near future to further boost USB max data transfer rates.




LOG IN TO REPLY
MCAsan
Goldmember
MCAsan's Avatar
3,527 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Atlanta
Jan 05, 2011 07:30 as a reply to toxic's post |  #8

I wonder if we will see an eSATA spec updated to SATA III (6GB) speeds? Perhaps USB 3 can be so close that there will be little incentive to continue evloving eSATA?


Canon EOS 5DIII | 24-105f4L | 17-40f4L | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L | 100 f2.8L Macro | Canon EOS 7D | Tamron AF 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD| Canon Speedlite 580EXII | Gitzo GT-3531S | RRS BH-55 | Lexar 32GB 600x & 1000x CF cards | Lexar USB 3 reader
www.ourimages.netexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Strattos
Member
143 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Mildura, Australia
Jan 10, 2011 22:00 |  #9

Not sure how much help this is, but I recently transferred a heap of stuff off a Samsung Story external hard drive onto my HTPC via USB3. My HTPC is based around an Intel i3 530 and Western Digital Green 1tb drive.

It seemed to depend on what I was transferring, but sustained speeds of 70 mebabytes per second weren't unusual.

It would burst intially up about 100 and then settle down to this. However, some files also settled down to around the 45 mark.




LOG IN TO REPLY
ProwlingTiger
Senior Member
448 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Jan 11, 2011 01:18 |  #10

Also keep in mind, actual speeds are limited by how fast the drive or memory can write data. Also, if using a hard drive, it can also depend on how full the drive is and how fragmented it is. So while USB 3.0 and Lightpeak may claim xGb/s, you're unlikely to achieve anything near that speed until drives and memory can write that fast.


Something will be here later...

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,368 views & 0 likes for this thread
USB3 versus SATAII
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00187 for 5 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is industriz
1267 guests, 518 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016