Ads
Ads
All about External Storage
 Latest External Storage articles
NAS Attack: Network Storage From Thecus And Western Digital

NAS Attack: Network Storage From Thecus And Western Digital
Thecus is first company to offer an attractive little 2.5” NAS solution that works well in your living room, while Western Digital’s dual-drive NAS delivers up to 4TB of capacity with RAID 0 and 1. Today's we're testing the two very-different devices. Read More

  • A Lesson In Backup: Taking Care Of Your Data
    If you aren't regularly backing up your data, now's a good time to start. In this piece we cover some of the basic backup strategies, a handful of available tools, and backup performance over USB 2.0 using Samsung's newest Story Station external drive. Read More
All External Storage articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

kids : Bob Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
Ads

Sponsored links

USB 3 Makes External USB RAID ''Possible''

Next news
11:31 AM - August 26, 2009 by Kevin Parrish

Symwave's SOC will take advantage of USB 3.0 and provide RAID support for external drives.

Computerworld is reporting that Symwave, one of the first companies to design silicon for USB 3.0, is claiming that its new USB 3.0 SOC (system on a chip) can be used with external storage devices and provide transfer data rates up to 500 Mbit/sec.  USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec, a huge increase in throughput when compared to the 480 Mbit/sec limit seen with USB 2.0. As an example, a 25 GB HD movie would take 13.9 minutes to transport over a USB 2.0 connection, just 70 seconds over a USB 3.0 connection.

"You're pretty much communicating through a straw," said Gideon Intrater, Symwave's vice president of solutions architecture, referring to the 2.0 limitations. "USB 2 was good as long as you had 100GB on your hard drive, but now it's just way too slow."

Symwave's new SOC, developed for external storage devices including HDDs and SSDs, supposedly offers performance beyond the top speed of SATA. According to Intrater, the chip will allow speeds as high as 500 Mbit/sec because it supports RAID 0 configurations. System builders can take advantage of this feature by installing two external drives that can be addressed at the same time, offering faster data reads. In another scenario, the second drive could mirror the first USB drive.

Intrator also said that USB 3.0 can carry as much as 900 milliamps, making it easier to power a portable RAID array of two drives; USB 2.0 currently only provides 500 milliamps.

Source : Tom's Hardware US

Talkback
Add your comment
jeraldjunkmail 08/26/2009 5:53 PM
Show
Kaiser_25 08/26/2009 5:59 PM
Hide
-9+

"provide transfer data rates up to 500 Mbit/sec. USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec"
Im tired of them kinda mis labling, mbit is bits not bytes, so its like not that amazingly fast. They need to make Mbytes/sec the standard (for now) some people will read this and see 500 mb...and assume the wrong thing...BUT usb 3.0 does look badass and it is about time for it.

duckmanx88 08/26/2009 6:03 PM
Hide
-1+

kaiser_25 :
They need to make Mbytes/sec the standard (for now) some people will read this and see 500 mb...and assume the wrong thing...BUT usb 3.0 does look badass and it is about time for it.



agreed. isp's do the same thing. its like who the eff uses those standards. my 6mbit connection is just 600KB/sec so just call it that!!

Shadow703793 08/26/2009 6:03 PM
Hide
-0+

900mA is more than enough to provide power for Flash,charging,etc.

At any rate Toms, do you have info on Hot Chips Conference that's taking place now?

Cryogenic 08/26/2009 6:03 PM
Hide
-2+

[citation]...Im tired of them kinda mis labling, mbit is bits not bytes, so its like not that amazingly fast...[/citation]

5 Gbits / sec = 642,5 MBytes / sec

That's pretty fast imo ...

Shadow703793 08/26/2009 6:04 PM
Hide
-0+

Shadow703793 :
900mA is more than enough to provide power for Flash,charging,etc. At any rate Toms, do you have info on Hot Chips Conference that's taking place now?


edit: took place. It's over now.

jimbowne 08/26/2009 6:13 PM
Hide
-0+

They gave me false hope... I thought it was 5 gigabytes/sec at first... THAT would be OUTRAGOUS.

Hanin33 08/26/2009 6:13 PM
Hide
-10+

jeraldjunkmail :
only 900mAmp? Woulda been nice if they could put some SERIOUS power on that line? 5 amp line anyone?



5amps... are you serious? wot do you intend on powering? a blender?

Kaiser_25 08/26/2009 6:30 PM
Hide
--3+

jeraldjunkmail :
only 900mAmp? Woulda been nice if they could put some SERIOUS power on that line? 5 amp line anyone?


Ya umm 5 amps would fry the hell out of any IC, MUCH less 45nm tech lol, theres a reason stuff is getting 'green' the small structures on the wafers cant stand high power, itll burn the crap.

Anonymous 08/26/2009 6:42 PM
Hide
-6+

"agreed. isp's do the same thing. its like who the eff uses those standards. my 6mbit connection is just 600KB/sec so just call it that!!"

600KB/sec = 4.8MBits/sec so no, your 6MBit connection isn't 600KB/sec.

1 Byte = 8 Bits

HolyCrusader 08/26/2009 6:58 PM
Hide
-1+

Device bandwidth and throughput has been rated in bits per for years, so this is nothing new.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to this technology - both in terms of USB-based RAID solutions and greater amperage for powering devices will be nice. Simply being able to reliably plug-in a portable USB HD without needing a special 2-plug USB Cable will be nice.

Netherscourge 08/26/2009 7:22 PM
Hide
-2+

How many amps did Apollo 13 use to get back home?

thackstonns 08/26/2009 7:23 PM
Show
JasonAkkerman 08/26/2009 7:40 PM
Hide
-0+

Hanin33 :
5amps... are you serious? wot do you intend on powering? a blender?



At 5 volts DC, 5 amps is a considerable amount of current. Hardly enough to power a blender, but considerable still. Depending on the speed, most blender AC motors pull between 2-5 amps on a 110 volt line.

I must admit though that I am happy to see such a larger increase in available current. I'm tires of getting messages every time I connect something to my keyboard and I'm told maximum controller power has been exceeded.

blackened144 08/26/2009 7:46 PM
Hide
-1+

Imperiex :
"agreed. isp's do the same thing. its like who the eff uses those standards. my 6mbit connection is just 600KB/sec so just call it that!!"600KB/sec = 4.8MBits/sec so no, your 6MBit connection isn't 600KB/sec.1 Byte = 8 Bits


Hes saying that with his 6mbit connections he can only achieve rates of about 600kb/s.. Which is about standard for DSL.. When I had 1.5mbit dsl I could get around 150kb/s, my 3mbit connection would get my about 300kb/s and my 6mbit got me about 600kb/s... Comcast is the only provider that has actually provided me with full bandwidth. My newsgroup transfers always pegged at a solid 8mbit, or 1mbyte/sec, except for the first minute or so where Comcast provides up to 24mbit/s with their TurboBoost..

fooldog01 08/26/2009 7:48 PM
Hide
-0+

Call me crazy but I dont understand why they dont overkill these standards. Why isnt the new USB spec like 20 Gbit/s? Is that technologically out of reach? Why aren't they doing a little more to future proof this stuff? With SSD's on the rise, that bandwidth is going to feel strained in a relatively short time.

dark_lord69 08/26/2009 7:53 PM
Show
intelliclint 08/26/2009 8:11 PM
Hide
-1+

Will USB 3.0 still rely on the CPU as heavily as the previous versions? I never considered USB a good solution for real time storage like video editing or games as during its use the CPU utilization climbs as the data transfer rate increases. An PATA, SATA, SCSI, and even NICs off load work from the CPU where USB currently does not.

One of the main reasons I recommend for users of cable modems not to use the USB hookup but use the NIC whenever possible.

JohnnyLucky 08/26/2009 9:41 PM
Hide
-0+

Should I fasten my seat belt or not?

jellico 08/26/2009 9:59 PM
Hide
-1+

fooldog01 :
Call me crazy but I dont understand why they dont overkill these standards. Why isnt the new USB spec like 20 Gbit/s? Is that technologically out of reach? Why aren't they doing a little more to future proof this stuff? With SSD's on the rise, that bandwidth is going to feel strained in a relatively short time.



Geez, don't neg-vote the guy for saying something like this, he may very well not understand.

fooldog, these speeds are not chosen arbitrarily, but are based upon the current limitations in the technology and some attempt at prognosticating where the technology will likely be when the standard actually becomes a standard.

Without getting into technical detail, consider the evolution of data transfer rates for hard drives. Forgetting all the MFM and RLL stuff, and jumping right into IDE. Initially, data transfer was controlled via PIO modes. The limitation here was that it required the CPU to be involved in data transfers, and when the amount of data was particularly large, it imposed a tremendous load on the CPU. Then came DMA modes, which allowed data to be written directly to memory without putting a huge burden on the CPU (those were ATA standards 1 and 2). Then came more DMA modes, then Ultra DMA modes. We went from ATA-1 at 3.3 Mb/s to ATA-7 at 133 MB/s (theoretical). Now why not just create ATA-7 well in advance of needing that much? Because it was technologically impossible at the time. The technology simply did not exist.

It's just like the CPUs, we hit 500 MHz back in 1998, 1 GHz back in early 2000, 2 GHz in late 2000, then it wasn't until 2005 that we hit 4 GHz, now a few months shy of 2010 and we're still hovering around 4 GHz... WTF is up with that? We should be pushing 10 GHz by now. Well, we hit the wall. We're up against the theoretical limit of the technology and no one has come up with the next trick yet. So instead of going faster, they started putting more cores (essentially multiple processors) on the same chip.

I'm sorry, this is longer than I wanted it to be. The bottom line is that creating a standard is no easy task. There are a multiude of factors that have to be taken into account. Anyway, I hope this helps.

matt87_50 08/27/2009 1:34 AM
Hide
-1+

what is wrong with all you people?? watts = volts times amps..
usb runs at 5 volts, not 110 or 240!

500mamp times 5 v = 2.5W
900mamp times 5 v = 4.5W
5a times 5 v = 25W

I agree, there should be more power through usb 3, 4.5W is not enough to spin up even one 3.5" drive, let alone more than one.

derek2006 08/27/2009 4:19 AM
Hide
-1+

Also putting 5 amps down the line isn't going to fry anything. The device is only going to draw as much current as needed. You fry things by giving it more voltage, not amps because it simply just won't use them. The only thing I would be worried about is 5 amps going down the tiny USB wires when a device really does need it. You could get almost the same amount of power by going to 12V and only needing 2 amps but then the little devices would require something like a transformer to reduce the voltage or fry.

Anonymous 08/27/2009 6:36 AM
Hide
-1+

Imperiex:
600KB/sec = 4.8MBits/sec so no, your 6MBit connection isn't 600KB/sec.
1 Byte = 8 Bits
----------
Actually, if you take a look at the protocol,

http://www.axis.com/products/video [...] ission.htm
----------
Transmission speed is measured in bits per second. Eight bits equal one byte. But to transfer one byte, approx. 10 bits are required since approx. two extra bits will be used for control.
----------

So 6Mbit/sec = 600KB/s makes sense when you factor in the control bits.

thackstonns 08/27/2009 3:16 PM
Hide
--1+

serious why the negatives. I just dont see why people are all happy about this chip that provides more power but not any more throughput. Maybe I read something wrong, but 500Mbits isnt a big jump over 480Mbits. Until they reach higher speed I dont think they should put it on boards. All you are gonna have is people buying new motherboards and add in cards thinking they are able to get the full spec. I really feel that its false advertising. It isnt anywhere close to the spec.

Eccentric909 08/27/2009 4:14 PM
Hide
-1+

thackstonns :
serious why the negatives. I just dont see why people are all happy about this chip that provides more power but not any more throughput. Maybe I read something wrong, but 500Mbits isnt a big jump over 480Mbits. Until they reach higher speed I dont think they should put it on boards. All you are gonna have is people buying new motherboards and add in cards thinking they are able to get the full spec. I really feel that its false advertising. It isnt anywhere close to the spec.



Well, the story does say:
"USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec, a huge increase in throughput when compared to the 480 Mbit/sec limit seen with USB 2.0. "

So yeah, it's not only 20Mbits faster. While it also does state the transfer rates for the raid array would be 500 Mbit/sec, that's taking into account you don't always reach full throughput. Rarely have I ever seen USB2.0 reach it's max of 480 Mbits/sec. 5 Gbit/sec is much faster than 480 Mbit/sec, which is the true comparison of USB3.0 and USB2.0.

blackened144 :
Hes saying that with his 6mbit connections he can only achieve rates of about 600kb/s.. Which is about standard for DSL.. When I had 1.5mbit dsl I could get around 150kb/s, my 3mbit connection would get my about 300kb/s and my 6mbit got me about 600kb/s... Comcast is the only provider that has actually provided me with full bandwidth. My newsgroup transfers always pegged at a solid 8mbit, or 1mbyte/sec, except for the first minute or so where Comcast provides up to 24mbit/s with their TurboBoost..



With Charter (cable) I pay for 10 Mb and reach actual speeds of ~1.2 MB. Which is why I've always prefered cable to DSL, DSL always seems to come up short compared to cable when comparing the same speed. However, I've also noticed DSL tends to be a slight bit cheaper depending on the amount of carriers in the area.

So yeah, while he may technically be paying for 6Mb, which should equal around 768KB, because of the nature of most DSL (at least from what I've seen) 600KB seems about right. Possible reasons for not reaching the rated bandwidth could be because of distance between his connection and the providers hub or perhaps because of the quality of the phone lines.

I've personally found cable to be more relaible than DSL at least in my area, though everyone's mileage may vary.

thackstonns 08/27/2009 6:47 PM
Hide
--2+

Well, the story does say:
"USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec, a huge increase in throughput when compared to the 480 Mbit/sec limit seen with USB 2.0. "

So yeah, it's not only 20Mbits faster. While it also does state the transfer rates for the raid array would be 500 Mbit/sec, that's taking into account you don't always reach full throughput. Rarely have I ever seen USB2.0 reach it's max of 480 Mbits/sec. 5 Gbit/sec is much faster than 480 Mbit

Quote :/sec, which is the true comparison of USB3.0 and USB2.0.


No thats not what the story says. It says the through put of the chip is 500Mbits. and that the theoretical speed (the spec speed) of usb 3.0 is 5Gbits per second. I dont see how this is an upgrade besides the power. If I bought a chip based on the usb 3.0 specs thinking that I am going to get 10 times the performance. Buy all the external drives for a raid array, spend the time to set it up. and get 25Mbps through put im gonna be pissed. All I am saying is until you can deliver the spec dont sell the chip. Its not like we are talking about with overhead, signal loss, blah blah blah that it only truly does 3.5Gbits. We are talking about roughly the same speed as usb 2.0. Thats not an upgrade in my opinion

ssalim 08/27/2009 9:19 PM
Hide
-0+

How is it that USB2.0 have the same speed as USB3.0? So what do you consider an -up-grade? *rolls eyes*

Sponsored links

Related forums topics

Related articles

  • LaCie’s Little Big Disk Quadra is a controversial product. First of all, we have to point out the price of $599.99, which deserves being called “excessive” in the light of current hard drive prices, which have reached $100 for a 500 GB 2.5” mobile unit. That heavy price will get you the Little Big Disk Quadra, which comes in an enclosure that was designed by Neil Poulton. You get eSATA, USB 2.0, and both types of FireWire interfaces, as well as the option to run the device powered by the FireWire interface. Unfortunately, neither eSATA nor USB 2.0 can do this—USB 2.0 can’t supply sufficient power, and power over eSATA has not been specified. LaCie adds a small power supply for USB and eSATA users, though, and you’d need an external supply for any other storage device that offers 1 TB of storage as well. Terabyte Capacity Thanks to RAID 0 The terabyte capacity can be achieved by operating the two drives in RAID 0 striping mode, which results in considerably increased read and write throughput when compared to a single hard drive. The result is convincing: almost 100 MB/s of read and write throughput, and a minimum of at least 70 MB/s is not bad, although solid RAID 0 setups using two modern 2.5” drives could probably yield even better throughput. Using FireWire 800 will give you more than 65 MB/s read and 51 MB/s constant write throughput, while USB 2.0 is limited to 33 MB/s reads and 27 MB/s writes. We found that the device supports only RAID 0; a secure RAID 1 array cannot be configured. Impressive Build Quality and Power Consumption The aluminum case, with its hard drives built in, is certainly a heavyweight at 645 g (1.4 lbs), but again, we have to compare that to other 1 TB 3.5” solutions, which won’t be lighter. And the enclosure is amazingly well built and makes a solid impression. The rear side includes all of the interfaces, such as eSATA, FireWire 800 and USB 2.0, while the front holds the huge, blue status LED and backup button. We also liked the power consumption figures: a 4 W idle power requirement and peak power consumption of 7 W is really amazing, considering that it is necessary to power two 2.5” hard drives, the RAID logic and the power supply. Unfortunately, LaCie did not include a physical power switch, which forces users to disconnect the power supply if they want to completely shut down the Little Big Disk. LaCie Software LaCie bundles a backup solution with its product, which is nice, but does not particularly add value. It is essentially a copy utility that creates new backups by creating a new folder. Folders are named by the name of the backup paired with an index, and backups are always complete—it’s not possible to make incremental backups, nor to schedule them. The only option is an automated execution of the backup tool at the time Windows starts, which will automatically trigger a backup run.

  • Apogee is Walton Chaintech’s brand for memory modules, and it is now also used for flash SSDs. The Apogee SSDs are available at 32, 64 and 128 GB capacity points, and are based on either MLC or SLC flash memory. We received a 64 GB 2.5” MLC model, which is the reason for the poor write performance. We measured up to 111 MB/s on reads, but as little as 27 MB/s on writes—that’s only a fraction of the 149 to 89 MB/s promised on the Walton Chaintech website, and it’s even less than what USB 2.0 can support. Chaintech says that the SLC versions are faster, stating 163 MB/s for reads and up to 142 MB/s for writes. We are skeptical, upon looking at the results for our MLC-based sample. However, the 0.68 W to 1.8 W power consumption is very acceptable, and the drive comes with a second interface: you can also connect it via USB 2.0. This is the main reason why we included it in this little roundup, as it can either be used as a system drive, or as a portable storage device. Thanks to its low power consumption, the device runs on USB power. Its weight of 86 g is approximately 15% less than what a conventional 2.5” hard drive would weigh. USB 2.0 Performance SATA or USB 2.0: The Mini USB port lets you hook up this drive to a plethora of possible hosts. All you need is a suitable Mini USB to USB cable (which isn’t included with the drive). We looked at the Apogee SSD as a multi-purpose flash SSD, rather than as a drive that would serve as a system drive. For example, you could use it in a hot swap bay as a fast drive for your personal files on your PC. In this case, you would, of course, utilize the fast SATA interface, which provides up to 111 MB/s of throughput, as mentioned above. Whenever you need to travel, you could remove the drive, and hook it up to your notebook or other PCs using the USB interface. We talk about the Apogee's SATA performance in our most recent flash SSD roundup and focus on the USB performance here. The drive reads at approximately 30 MB/s, which is what we’d expect, but it only writes at approximately 15 MB/s when using USB 2.0. Flash-based SSDs can definitely do much better than this. Walton Chaintech ships the Apogee Flash SSD SATA II in this nice black box. The bottom side holds the product label.

  • Portable Storage Carried to Excess

    We receive lots of different storage products for review. Regardless of whether or not we like the different concepts, ideas, and solutions these products represent, we typically find that most of them make sense in some way—unless they fail utterly at performance, reliability, or providing decent bang for the buck. This time we looked at three storage products that are a bit different from what you’ll typically find at your local retailer. Buffalo offers all-flash portable storage, Chaintech sells a flash SSD that comes with an additional USB port, and LaCie sent us a state-of-the-art RAID product based on two 2.5” drives. LaCie: Fast and Mobile Storage LaCie is a popular storage vendor that is known for well designed, high-performance storage solutions for enthusiasts at the high end, or for small business users. The Little Big Disk Quadra is, despite its oxymoronic name, that type of an elite drive. It consists of two 500 GB 2.5” mobile hard drives inside a stylish and solid enclosure. It offers all popular interface types, and RAID technology to maximize performance. If you really need to combine high capacity and high performance with mobility, then this could be your product. Buffalo, Chaintech: More Flash, Just Different The flash market, especially the flash SSD segment, is changing so quickly that it is very difficult for smaller companies to keep pace. They are constantly working to release attractive products at acceptable prices before someone else releases the next product generation—which can sometimes offer double the performance and capacity at the same price points. Because of this issue, Buffalo and Chaintech provide products for very specific niches that are less sensitive to product cycles. Buffalo believes that there is room for 1.8” storage products that are entirely based on flash memory. We tend to disagree at capacities of up to 64 GB—where you can get USB thumb drives—but in the range of 128 GB and more, this looks like a market segment to address. Chaintech believes that flash SSDs should not be limited to the SATA interface, and designed a 2.5” flash SSD, which comes both with SATA/300 and USB 2.0 interfaces. Let’s look at some details.