USB3 eSATA and the Impossible

[Jormungandr]

Who's up to doing the impossible today? I like impossible. Before breakfast each day I try to come up with at least 3 impossible things I want to do. I got a pretty good track record of succeeding too.

Today I'm trying to find a 2.5" portable hard drive or 2.5" portable hard drive enclosure with both USB3 and eSATA support. Why both? Well because I said so for one... but also because I'm a computer repair tech and I ***will*** be using this on systems with only USB2, only USB3, only eSATA, or some combination there of (well a system without USB2 is rare... but what about when their USB ports are toasty (sometimes literally) but they have SATA internally? I can use a SATA <-> eSATA cable for such cases... and no such craziness is not unusual for me).

Well... after 5 hours of scouring the web I've discovered they don't seem to exist and dangit if I didn't have 3 impossible tasks already today, 4 is pushing my luck

So to be clear the requirements are:

• must be 2.5" form factor
• must have eSATA support
• must have USB3 support
• (and one I hadn't mentioned yet) must be able to run off the power provided by a usb2 port under all circumstances

Any one know of something like that?

It would be nice if it also:

• had a matching docking station for my own computer
• was at least 500gb (in the case of a hd)
• had rubber feet so it wont slide off desks, tables, filing cabinets, my hat (long story), etc

but those are just extras.

Lastly... what's the word on USB3 vs eSATA? Have newer USB3 implementations finally delivered on the "faster than SATA II" promise?

Looked for that as well but all I could find were reviews from early 2010. Since that was quickly turning into impossible thing #5 I stopped.

 

[Wythix]

This enclosure from Delock seems to match : http://www.delock.de/produkte/grupp...ort_USB_30_+_eSATAp_42488.html?setLanguage=EN but not sure if it's easy to find in the U.S.

It's likely that the hdd power requirement will determine if another source of power is needed especially with usb 2.

Actual Usb 3 chips are not quite on par with sata performances http://translate.google.fr/translat....fr/focus/42/usb-3-ou-sont-5-gbps-promis.html , 200Mo/s max, no NCQ. Next gen chips should offer better performances, but they're already quite good and well ahead of usb2.

 

[Red Falcon]

Just get an enclosure with USB 2.0 and eSATA.

I doubt there are any USB 3.0 mobos without eSATA, at least I have not seen any, and eSATA is more than enough for any portable-class HDD.

 

[Old Hippie]

(and one I hadn't mentioned yet) must be able to run off the power provided by a usb2 port under all circumstances

There's no guarantee that a HD will boot with USB2 power limitations and many won't.

That should be something every repair tech should know.

PS...I should refine this...while many 2.5" drives aren't usable with a single USB's power connection I'm not aware of any that won't boot with a USB "Y" cable to increase the avaliable power.

Hopefully that will fall between your requirements.

 

[DanNeely]

I think a lot of newer laptops will meet the USB3, no eSATA case.

 

[Red Falcon]

I think a lot of newer laptops will meet the USB3, no eSATA case.

That's not a bad point.

How about any of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=

 

[thefreeaccount]

I use an Adata Nobility N002 drive for this purpose. It has usb3 and sata connectors. You can use a usbpower+esata->satapower+sata cable to connect it to an esta port.
drive:
http://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Nobility-2-5-Inch-Solid-AN00264GCBK/dp/B003E86OUK
cable:
[ame="http://cgi.ebay.com/22-Pin-SATA-USB-Y-5V-Power-eSATA-Cable-2-5-Drives-/290351993045?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item439a53d0d5"]22 Pin SATA USB Y 5V Power & eSATA Cable for 2.5 Drives | eBay[/ame]

Unlike Adata's older S596 series, it's a low-power drive (200mA), so it should work from a single usb port in most cases. Uses a Marvell controller, works very well IMHO. They seem to go on sale pretty frequently - as low as $150/128GB at times.

ps-how do I get rid of the square thing in the middle of my post?

 

[Jormungandr]

Whoa... lot of replys... apparently i'm not the only one round here who likes challenges.

@Wythix
Nice find. That looks to be exactly what I need. Bravo and thank you.

@RedFalcon
actually that's a good point, come to think of it nether have I... but as some one pointed out laptops might be another story... I work with a lot less of them and rarely pay close attention to what ports they have till I need one.

Also: Woot! for newegg. Love them. Unfortunately I checked them first and since I only do on-site work and already have to lug all my tools around with me I'd rather not add anything that big to my collection. I probably should have mentioned that above.

@OldHippie
Well of course . But remember I was leaving the door open for cradles with drives already in them, ie "external hard drives." With USB3 being able to provide more power some manufacturers may decide they no longer need to make sure the drives they put in their cradles will run with the output of a single usb2 jack. I wanted to make sure I didn't leave out such a critical detail only to regret it later.

And in the rare case that the usb2 port isn't providing the amount of power its supposed to I'll just have to improvise. I'm just trying to make sure improvising isn't the norm. More than 3 impossible tasks in a day and I end up asking random people on the internet for help. It's most disconcerting.

Forgot all about Y cables... the ancient cradle drive combo I'm using now (it's got a 10gig drive in it... no seriously) works fine with a normal usb cable... haven't had to mess with Y cables since the last time a customer handed me a portable drive with one.

@thefreeaccount

Hmmm... sounds good... only problem seems to be that ADATA has stopped making it. They now have the NH01 but its USB3 only. Still might be able to go after it on ebay or something. It working well for you? Never used ADATA personally.

 

[UhClem]

Lastly... what's the word on USB3 vs eSATA? Have newer USB3 implementations finally delivered on the "faster than SATA II" promise?

"Supposedly" ... but, in practice, what would the test set-up consist of? A USB3<=>USB3 "transfer cable" ? (I hate hearsay more than most, but) I heard that ~350 Mbytes/sec is a practical (real-world) upper limit for a proper motherboard implementation.

While not the one-device-does-all solution you're seeking, I think this new gadget might warrant a niche in your toolbox:
[ USB3 => eSATA adapter (w/port-multiplier support)] http://www.datoptic.com/usb3-usb2-to-esata-with-port-multiplier.html . The eSATA is "only" SATA II, however.

--UhClem

 

[Red Falcon]

"Supposedly" ... but, in practice, what would the test set-up consist of? A USB3<=>USB3 "transfer cable" ? (I hate hearsay more than most, but) I heard that ~350 Mbytes/sec is a practical (real-world) upper limit for a proper motherboard implementation.

True, but I doubt that any 5400RPM portable-class drive will achieve anywhere near that speed.

The only reason at this point to not use USB 2.0 is due to the 30MB/s cap for any single device, and 5400RPM drives can easily exceed that speed.

 

[Jormungandr]

"Supposedly" ... but, in practice, what would the test set-up consist of? A USB3<=>USB3 "transfer cable" ? (I hate hearsay more than most, but) I heard that ~350 Mbytes/sec is a practical (real-world) upper limit for a proper motherboard implementation.

While not the one-device-does-all solution you're seeking, I think this new gadget might warrant a niche in your toolbox:
[ USB3 => eSATA adapter (w/port-multiplier support)] http://www.datoptic.com/usb3-usb2-to-esata-with-port-multiplier.html . The eSATA is "only" SATA II, however.

--UhClem

oooooo... thanks for the reminder...

I've been using a USB => SATA/IDE3.5/IDE2.5 adapter for years. Always been a huge irritation with the way it slows all those connections down. Even your typical IDE drive can transfer data twice as fast as USB2.

But hey, we have usb3 now right? so how about something like this? (and now people can't say I don't contribute )

The adapter you posted is certainly more portable... but I find having an external power source handy when I need to hook a dive up to my laptop to tell if the errors I'm finding are really caused by the drive or a failing south bridge/disk controller... or in the case of virus scanning/disk imaging an old computer (with little memory and a weak cpu).

I've started using live cds and I'm working on a truly portable linux installation on an external hd but when the system has hardware problems the live cd/portable installation of linux tends to misbehave just as much (or more than) windows would. And I find with live cds no matter how many different ones I have with me there is always some peice of hardware I need to support that none of them can handle (less so with my gentoo on a etx hd... but still happens occasionally).

And I mean portable linux for real... as in not just a livecd copied to a ext hd but an installation of linux installed to an ext hd as if it were an internal... all ready did it with Gentoo... though Gentoo is... temperamental. Gonna see if I can manage it with Mint next. It's one of the things I want a new external hd for.

Near as I can tell that was another thing that was supposed to be "impossible"... cause no matter how much research I did I never found any one claiming to have done it. Wasn't actually hard though... just compile everything for generic i686 with no extension support (unless you know the app can auto-sense which extensions are actually available) and nuke a couple udev persist rules to make linux "forget" certain things each time it rebooted. Then I could customize it to my needs and make sure every kernel module and app I needed was there. Also... significantly lower memory footprint than livecds

Annnnd I'm taking my own thread off topic (go me!)... so anyway... being able to hook hd's up to my laptop... big deal. Not taking a huge performance hit when doing it... huge deal. thanx for the reminder.

True, but I doubt that any 5400RPM portable-class drive will achieve anywhere near that speed.

The only reason at this point to not use USB 2.0 is due to the 30MB/s cap for any single device, and 5400RPM drives can easily exceed that speed.

I dunno... 2.5" sata dive's might do it. 5400rpm is pretty fast when the data is packed as tight as it often is on 2.5" hard drives... most have one or two platters right? as opposed to like three to five in most 3.5" models. And each platter is what? Half the size of the platters in a 3.5"?

In fact I thought conventional wisdom was that high-capacity 2.5" 5400rpm drives had similar access times to high capacity 3.5" 7200rpm drives since the data was packed so tightly, even at lower spindle speeds it was still zipping under the read/write heads at the same rate (per MB anyway).

Never thoroughly researched that... just kinda made enough sense that I accepted it outta hand. Also... come to think of it... might have just been sequential access times which doesn't help if a disk is thoroughly fragmented. *shrug* correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rpmucha23]

Addonics RubyEX 2.5" external drive enclosure.
- eSATA, eSATAp, optional eSATAp-to-USB 3.0 adapter

http://www.addonics.com/products/ruby/ruby_exd.asp

http://www.addonics.com/products/io/adu3esa.asp

 

[Old Hippie]

The fastest 2.5" 7200rpm mechanical drive is @ 125MB/s burst speeds.

The 5400rpm drives are @ 25MB/s slower.

PS....Like you said in the title "Impossible", this is kinda like trying to stuff 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag.

 

[midnkight]

I use an Adata Nobility N002 drive for this purpose. It has usb3 and sata connectors. You can use a usbpower+esata->satapower+sata cable to connect it to an esta port.
drive:
http://www.amazon.com/ADATA-Nobility-2-5-Inch-Solid-AN00264GCBK/dp/B003E86OUK
cable:
22 Pin SATA USB Y 5V Power & eSATA Cable for 2.5 Drives | eBay

Unlike Adata's older S596 series, it's a low-power drive (200mA), so it should work from a single usb port in most cases. Uses a Marvell controller, works very well IMHO. They seem to go on sale pretty frequently - as low as $150/128GB at times.

ps-how do I get rid of the square thing in the middle of my post?

I got a pair of those in the 128gb flavor running raid 0. haha My boss already called dips on them when i upgrade. haha.

 

[Red Falcon]

I dunno... 2.5" sata dive's might do it. 5400rpm is pretty fast when the data is packed as tight as it often is on 2.5" hard drives... most have one or two platters right? as opposed to like three to five in most 3.5" models. And each platter is what? Half the size of the platters in a 3.5"?

In fact I thought conventional wisdom was that high-capacity 2.5" 5400rpm drives had similar access times to high capacity 3.5" 7200rpm drives since the data was packed so tightly, even at lower spindle speeds it was still zipping under the read/write heads at the same rate (per MB anyway).

Never thoroughly researched that... just kinda made enough sense that I accepted it outta hand. Also... come to think of it... might have just been sequential access times which doesn't help if a disk is thoroughly fragmented. *shrug* correct me if I'm wrong.

No 5400RPM 2.5" drive will ever come close to the speed of a 7200RPM 3.5" drive, not even close. You need to do some research before making statements like this.

Even the best HDDs in existence have been able to barely break SATA-I speeds, let alone SATA-II. Where SATA-II and SATA-III are nice are for SSDs as they can easily achieve those speeds.

 

[Jormungandr]

PS....Like you said in the title "Impossible", this is kinda like trying to stuff 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag.

Lol... that's not even a challenge. 10lb of lead, gold, or platinum would fit in your average 5lb bag (which typically are used for bulk candies) with plenty of room to spare. A 5lb bag of sugar would leave a lot less room left over but would still hardly be a challenge. I could stick 10lb of Neutronium in a coin purse.

10lb of computer stuff though? Lol... my tool bag is already proof of the difficulties that involves.

Sometimes it just takes a bit of lateral thinking. Other times it takes sacrificing on requirements. For example... I could get two cradles (one usb2/esata and one usb3), stick identical drives in them, and make a point to mirror them every night. Or I can settle for a larger cradle with a low-power 2.5" drive in it.

Actually the best fall back I've got so far is the small usb3-to-esata(p) adapter several people have posted. Though I have some concerns about some systems not wanting to boot a drive in such a configuration. (then again I can just as easily run into that problem with a cradle... so...)

none of that is exactly ideal... but often the "ideal" part is the only part that is actually impossible.

This enclosure from Delock seems to match : http://www.delock.de/produkte/gruppe...setLanguage=EN but not sure if it's easy to find in the U.S.

@Wythix
Nice find. That looks to be exactly what I need. Bravo and thank you.

I've looked and unfortunately that only appears to be available in Europe. We yanks will have to do without I'm afraid. Still.. thanx for the suggestion.

You need to do some research before making statements like this.

I've done nothing but be polite... I've made sure to thank every one who has contributed... I've gone out of my way not to ignore any one.

So I find this nasty retort on your part rather puzzling. I don't care for it and I'd rather appreciate it if you would keep things polite from here on. If you can't do that, please find another thread to post in.

Feel free to stick around... just please drop the 'tude.

Now I have done a bit of research and yes, in early tests (from 2005), 2.5" 5400 rpm drives typically under perform compared to 3.5" 7200 rpm drives... but not by much. Still perhaps my little thought-experiment you call a "statement" was a bit optimistic.

More recent articles seem to claim there is no reliable difference in performance between a 7200rpm 2.5" and a 7200rpm 3.5" at an equivalent data density (as in GB per platter rather than GB per cm). At the same capacity (which means the 3.5 would have a lower data density) the 2.5" drive out preforms the 3.5" drive.

A few recent articles (by journalists rather than engineers) also completely contradict this claim.

And then I've seen benchmarks pointing both ways.

So it generally looks like no body can make up their damned mind what the truth of the matter is. Maybe when I have some money to burn one day I'll test it myself... but ultimately all of that is irrelevant because...

Even if modern 2.5" drives can't break the 1.5gigabit per second "barrier" future drives likely will... hell I might even decide I trust SSD drives enough to put one of those in there eventually. And it makes no sense to buy something and replace it in 2 years when with a little foresight I could spend close to the same amount and buy something that lasts me 5 or more. I'm thrifty like that.

 

[Red Falcon]

I've done nothing but be polite... I've made sure to thank every one who has contributed... I've gone out of my way not to ignore any one.

So I find this nasty retort on your part rather puzzling. I don't care for it and I'd rather appreciate it if you would keep things polite from here on. If you can't do that, please find another thread to post in.

Feel free to stick around... just please drop the 'tude.

Now I have done a bit of research and yes, in early tests (from 2005), 2.5" 5400 rpm drives typically under perform compared to 3.5" 7200 rpm drives... but not by much. Still perhaps my little thought-experiment you call a "statement" was a bit optimistic.

More recent articles seem to claim there is no reliable difference in performance between a 7200rpm 2.5" and a 7200rpm 3.5" at an equivalent data density (as in GB per platter rather than GB per cm). At the same capacity (which means the 3.5 would have a lower data density) the 2.5" drive out preforms the 3.5" drive.

A few recent articles (by journalists rather than engineers) also completely contradict this claim.

And then I've seen benchmarks pointing both ways.

So it generally looks like no body can make up their damned mind what the truth of the matter is. Maybe when I have some money to burn one day I'll test it myself... but ultimately all of that is irrelevant because...

Even if modern 2.5" drives can't break the 1.5gigabit per second "barrier" future drives likely will... hell I might even decide I trust SSD drives enough to put one of those in there eventually. And it makes no sense to buy something and replace it in 2 years when with a little foresight I could spend close to the same amount and buy something that lasts me 5 or more. I'm thrifty like that.

I was never rude, nor did I have an attitude.

I think you misread my post. I stated that while no 2.5" (or 3.5") mechanical drive can break the SATA-II barrier, they can still break the USB 2.0 30MB/s barrier, hence your need for USB 3.0 or eSATA.

No, no 2.5" 5400RPM, or 7200RPM drive, will match the speeds of the equivalent 3.5" drive. They will come close, but I don't know of any 1.5TB-3TB 2.5" drives. They do have 1TB drives, but all of them are mid-end to low-end drives. There are no Black or XT or F4 class drives with those sizes.

I'm sorry you took my statement the wrong way, you shouldn't take things so personally. It wasn't an attack on you or your knowledge. You do want to make sure you are making correct statements however, and make sure to keep an open mind.

 

[Old Hippie]

The fastest 2.5" 7200rpm mechanical drive is @ 125MB/s burst speeds.

Even if modern 2.5" drives can't break the 1.5gigabit per second "barrier" future drives likely will...

SAS drives may be a little better but the market for consumer 2.5" mechanical drives is disappearing and I doub't there's any plans for developing them further.

Lol... that's not even a challenge. 10lb of lead, gold, or platinum would fit in your average 5lb bag (which typically are used for bulk candies) with plenty of room to spare. A 5lb bag of sugar would leave a lot less room left over but would still hardly be a challenge. I could stick 10lb of Neutronium in a coin purse.

Whatever you say.

 

[Abula]

SAS drives may be a little better but the market for consumer 2.5" mechanical drives is disappearing and I doub't there's any plans for developing them further.

You probably right in terms they will be the first to go out, since they have lower capacity than 3.5 drives, and this range will be catched by ssds faster, that said, its not going to be any time soon. Personally the switch that im expecting is laptop manufacturers to start including mini Sata ports, with this we could have a small efficient laptop running a 80/120gb mSata ssd, and use the mechanincal for storage, while still maintaining a very small laptop.

 

[Old Hippie]

Personally the switch that im expecting is laptop manufacturers to start including mini Sata ports, with this we could have a small efficient laptop running a 80/120gb mSata ssd, and use the mechanincal for storage, while still maintaining a very small laptop.

Mechanical drives will be gone.

There's no need for the moving parts, more weight and more heat than SSD.

 

[Abula]

Mechanical drives will be gone.

There's no need for the moving parts, more weight and more heat than SSD.

In time, but atm not everybody has $1000 for 600gb ssd, not that we all need that, but atm the trend is going with small ssd and mechanical for storage, in time as prices drop down i see viable what you believe, but atm no.

 

[thefreeaccount]

In time, but atm not everybody has $1000 for 600gb ssd, not that we all need that, but atm the trend is going with small ssd and mechanical for storage, in time as prices drop down i see viable what you believe, but atm no.

Same for performance...having to 100%+ overprovision just so your disks don't grind to a halt after two hours is not very affordable

 

[UhClem]

The fastest 2.5" 7200rpm mechanical drive is @ 125MB/s burst speeds.

But Western Digital says you're wrong. See the WD Scorpio Black datasheet - http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701275.pdf
under: Specifications->Performance->Data transfer rate (max)->Host to/from drive (sustained)
750GB [WD7500BPKT] - 180 MB/s
500GB [WD5000BPKT] - 160 MB/s

Sadly, both you (OldHippie) and WDC have made egregious errors in (industry-accepted) terminology. You used "burst" where you should have used "sustained"; WDC did the reverse. But WDC made their blatantly misleading statement of performance on a product datasheet. Shameful!!, inexcusable, and, potentially, actionable.

PS.... like trying to stuff 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag.

"But it's really good shit, Mrs. Presky."

--UhClem

 

[Old Hippie]

But Western Digital says you're wrong. See the WD Scorpio Black datasheet - http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701275.pdf
under: Specifications->Performance->Data transfer rate (max)->Host to/from drive (sustained)
750GB [WD7500BPKT] - 180 MB/s
500GB [WD5000BPKT] - 160 MB/s

Sadly, both you (OldHippie) and WDC have made egregious errors in (industry-accepted) terminology

Unfortunately the charts I used stopped at 2009 but I didn't make any mistake quoting burst speed.

Because that's the fastest speed of any mechanical drive it showed the extreme capabilities of the drive will never meet the limit the OP's desire.

As usual all manfgs are optomistic when reviewing their drives and real world testing shows the 500GB a little slower (110 MB/s) than their charts but it doesn't really matter.

This thread has grown tentacles and the OP can continue to look from the impossible.