Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
ie eSATA more than double the speed of two harddrives? I'm just wondering if a single eSATA port is used to access two harddrives in an enclosure if a speed hit will be taken.
Serial ATA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"While even the fastest conventional hard disk drives can barely saturate the original SATA 1.5 Gbit/s bandwidth, Intel's Solid State Disk drives are close to saturating the SATA 3 Gbit/s limit at 250 MB/s net read speed"
This is for storage so SSD won't work. I like to run hash checks that can take more than ten hours so I'm wondering whether to get a more convenient 2 HD enclosure that has one eSATA port, or two single HD enclosures with one eSATA port each. I don't want to have a dual HD enclosure with one eSATA port only to have the port be the bottleneck when I can get two separates enclosures with one eSATA port each. THat's one reason I always read from one HD but write the results to another.
mmmm love eSATA after living with transferring 500 gigs at a time over USB2.0.
The thing that bothers me about regular SATA however is that so far all the
systems i have tested for the copy file function have come up short of a
good IDE system. I hesitate to get an SATA drive now.
How has it come up short against IDE? WHen I got my new PC, I didn't have much of a choice. All the mobos were SATA and all the HDs were SATA. eSATA was the main advantage for me. Plus...I hated running ackward wide ribbon cables everywhere.
How has it [SATA] come up short against IDE? WHen I got my new PC, I didn't have much of a choice. All the mobos were SATA and all the HDs were SATA. eSATA was the main advantage for me. Plus...I hated running ackward wide ribbon cables everywhere.
Could it be because for a copy file operation
the file has to be both read from the disk and then written back
to the disk, and that takes more time with a serial device?
It has to read and write the files plus both directory entries.
I dont really know for sure though. All i know for sure is that
the SATA systems i have tested come in at roughly one half
of the speed of the reference IDE system, and these were all
relatively recent systems (within 2 years ago).
What i did do is make a disk speed test program and i ask
people to test their systems and send me the results so i can
compare a more wider base of systems. The program only
takes about 15 seconds to run and the results display out on
screen. If anyone is interested in this program, please let me
know. I would be interested to see the results from more
systems so i can make a good comparison between the real
life SATA drives (not just the spec's printed on web sites)
and real life IDE drives.
It's simply called "CopyTest.exe" and i had written it many years ago.
If you would like a copy i can email you one.
I'd be very interested to hear your results too though if you dont mind.
Krumlink:
So far i havent been able to find one SATA drive faster than a standard IDE drive
when doing file copies. That's what was so surprising to me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
