1 |
On 2011-10-24, Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> Am 24.10.2011 22:02, schrieb Grant Edwards: |
3 |
>> On 2011-10-24, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> I just bought an add-on USB3 adapter and outboard USB3/sata docking |
6 |
>>> station, and I've been comparing the performance with my old e-sata |
7 |
>>> outboard docking station. Not so good :( |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> After getting some unreliable results with hdparm, I settled on |
10 |
>>> copying one 3GB file from one partition of the outboard drive to |
11 |
>>> another partition of the same drive. These results are highly |
12 |
>>> reproducible, and favor e-sata over USB3 by a large margin. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Over at least six trials on each docking station I consistently get |
15 |
>>> 105 seconds for USB and 84 seconds for e-sata, a 5:4 ratio in favor |
16 |
>>> of e-sata. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Not surprising. Did you expect that adding a gateway device to the |
19 |
>> communication path and another protocol layer on top of SATA would |
20 |
>> make things faster? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>>> I used the same hard disk and the same pci-e slot in the same |
23 |
>>> minimally-loaded machine for all the runs, and got very consistent |
24 |
>>> results every time. |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>>> Basically, the USB3/sata docking station gets the same throughput as |
27 |
>>> the older sata 1 drives connected to the onboard pci sata controller, |
28 |
>>> which is still pretty respectable for an outboard drive, I think. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> Yep, SATA performs the same as SATA. AFAIK, eSATA and SATA are |
31 |
>> identical apart from the physical specs for the connector, a few minor |
32 |
>> voltage level differences (to imporove noise tolerance), and hot-plug |
33 |
>> support. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Normal SATA also offers hotplug. Usually works, too. |
36 |
|
37 |
I read somewhere that not all controllers support hotplug on |
38 |
"internal" connectors, but I can't personally attest to having found |
39 |
one that didn't. |
40 |
|
41 |
>>> So, has anyone out there done similar tests on USB3 drives yet? |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> There are disk drives that talk USB3 natively and aren't just using |
44 |
>> USB<->SATA gateways? |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Well, there is USB Attached SCSI (CONFIG_USB_UAS in the kernel). It |
47 |
> supports command queuing and works for USB-2.0 and 3.0 (but has |
48 |
> additional software overhead for USB-2.0). I've not yet seen a |
49 |
> compatible device, though. |
50 |
|
51 |
Interesting. Is USB3 peer to peer like SCSI and Firewire, or is it |
52 |
the same master/slave poll/response scheme that has always crippled |
53 |
USB? Doing SCSI via a poll/response transport protocol seems like it |
54 |
would lose most of the advantages of SCSI. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! He is the MELBA-BEING |
58 |
at ... the ANGEL CAKE |
59 |
gmail.com ... XEROX him ... XEROX |
60 |
him -- |