At 1:42 AM -0600 3/8/2009, Kris Tilford wrote: > >I've got several FW external enclosures, both FW400 & FW800, all using >PATA 150 HDs. I've measured the difference in speed on a G5 dual 2.3 >booting and also transferring large files on both. My conclusion was >that FW800 is almost the same speed as FW400, and that the limitation >is the HD itself, not the bus.
LOL! :) Yea. These cheap SATA drives going around make me laff. Slapping an uber fast external interface onto a slow drive mechanism is one the best sales coups of the decade! >Perhaps a dual HD enclosure with mirrored RAID 0 HDs would increase >the throughput on FW800? I have tested a dual RAID 0 FW400 and it >wasn't any faster than a single HD, so it appears the speed of a FW400 >bus is saturated by a single PATA 150 HD, and this would lead me to >believe that the ONLY advantage to FW800 would be to use two HDs in a >RAID 0 configuration. Perhaps an SATA FW800 external would be faster >than PATA? You need to add a few more variables when considering throughput. System i/o bus speed. Interface speed (FW400, FW800, USB2, SATA, eSATA etc). Cable length. External box's interface speed (as it bridges from the external to the internal interface) HD's "native" interface speed (PATA, SATA, SCSI-x, etc). HD's buffered i/o speed. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
