| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:28 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I just bought an add-on USB3 adapter and outboard USB3/sata docking |
| 3 |
> station, and I've been comparing the performance with my old e-sata |
| 4 |
> outboard docking station. Not so good :( |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> After getting some unreliable results with hdparm, I settled on |
| 7 |
> copying one 3GB file from one partition of the outboard drive to |
| 8 |
> another partition of the same drive. These results are highly |
| 9 |
> reproducible, and favor e-sata over USB3 by a large margin. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Over at least six trials on each docking station I consistently |
| 12 |
> get 105 seconds for USB and 84 seconds for e-sata, a 5:4 ratio |
| 13 |
> in favor of e-sata. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I used the same hard disk and the same pci-e slot in the same |
| 16 |
> minimally-loaded machine for all the runs, and got very consistent |
| 17 |
> results every time. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Basically, the USB3/sata docking station gets the same throughput as |
| 20 |
> the older sata 1 drives connected to the onboard pci sata controller, |
| 21 |
> which is still pretty respectable for an outboard drive, I think. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So, has anyone out there done similar tests on USB3 drives yet? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have not; I don't have a system with USB3 yet. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As far as USB3 goes, I'm more curious about host-host networking |
| 28 |
performance. Anyone played with that? If it's reasonably reliable, I |
| 29 |
could see 3-4 USB3 ports on three machines acting as a poor-man's |
| 30 |
high-performance, one-hop many-many mesh network, potentially good for |
| 31 |
network-synchronized block devices. I find Intel's Thunderbolt |
| 32 |
interesting for similar reasons. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
:wq |
Archives