My experience is if you have a large set of files to copy the result is
quite accurate (did many tests in the pass twenty years), I bet no more than
20% variation in most cases unless your dirve is almost full. To gain more
speed you better go with a 10000rpm drive or a RAID setup.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> Probably a fair test if the drives were otherwise fairly empty such that
> the source data was relatively sequentially organized on the drive.
> Otherwise, if the data was scattered on one drive and not the other,
> seek and rotational delays would be greater on the drive with the
> scattered data.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> Sorry, overlooked the second part. I did the comparison by copying SATA
>> to
>> USB and SATA to SATA with the same 20GB data. I have not tried to check
>> the
>> Read rate only.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "C.H.Ling"
>>
>>> So when we are talking about external drives for backup, then writing
>>> time
>>> is also very important, eSATA does not has that much advantage here.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>>>
>>>> AS I said the other day, disks spend a lot of time just trying to get
>>>> to
>>>> were they're going and, once they get there, waiting on the correct
>>>> data
>>>> to rotate around to where the head is. They all seek to where they're
>>>> going at very similar rates and, assuming the same RPM on the platters,
>>>> they all wait at the same speed. Actual data throughput gets dragged
>>>> down by all the mechanical delays.
>>>>
>>>> But do be aware of what you're comparing. If you are simply reading
>>>> from the USB drive into memory but reading and writing between the two
>>>> SATA drives then the write operation has the SATA drives at a big
>>>> disadvantage. Writing takes longer than reading and the reading from
>>>> drive 1 can't go any faster then the writing to drive 2 once the cache
>>>> is full.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>>> 5x! Did you ever made a real comparison? I got 22MB per second for USB
>>>>> and I
>>>>> can't get over 30MB with SATA to SATA (two hard disks inside the same
>>>>> PC). I
>>>>> believe the HD sustain rate and other overheads in the computer
>>>>> limited
>>>>> the
>>>>> data rate a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> C.H.Ling
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Moose"
>>>>>> I'm simply not buying any external HD which is USB 2.0 only. eSATA is
>>>>>> WAY faster, 5x the speed, and only a very few $ more, if that. Maybe
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> shouldn't make a difference for a drive planned for backup use only,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> it does for me. I simply find it easier when the process goes faster.
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|