USB 3.0

[PJ S]

Last post on this since it isn't exactly thread related....but the bare minimum, as per any definition of the phrase, is ONE drive archiving what's on the internal one.

A RAID1, as I proposed, is two drives in the same enclosure with identical data on each.
I further proposed the OP consider an SSD for his laptop, so that the RAID setup acts as an archive, and he pulls across onto the laptop's what he needs to work on/watch/listen to.

I get the dual independent drives and enclosures, but that's two power outlets needed, and the drives daisy-chained.
A solution, but not an elegant one.

I'm sitting here with a 10 yo FireWire enclosure, with a 6-7 yo Samsung drive in it - it's still not failed or dropped me in the pooper, besides being powered on 24/7 (mainly) and the drive spinning up and down on command.
You've got to understand the vast majority of people out there have NO backup plans or solution, so any time this crops up, it's better to advise they spend a moderate amount initially, after which they can then supplement or sell and go for something approaching the whole hog.

 

[MIKEROPHONICS]

raid drives have a higher failure rate than non raid HDD - not for me thanks. Buy HDD and a drive dock for back ups.

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Neil, I agree, but when you balance that against the number of people who've no redundancy in place whatsoever, and who've never had the drive go south on them, your proposition is too extreme.

For most domestic users cataloguing their photos/film/music, an external drive(s) is better than nothing, which is where our OP is, and having forgotten/never knew the golden rule about hard drive minimum free space retention.

Like everything in life, you can spend as much or as little as you like - it's for the end user to justify and live with the decision.
So whilst you're spot on, it's better to have everybody doing the bare minimum, before advocating going the whole hog.

I wonder if "the golden rule" still applies in these days of huge disk sizes?

 

[Diving Pete]

The real question is:

How important are your pictures to you...

I keep mine on 2 harddrives, the Local SSD & an external HDD (300gb SATA) though this will soon be mirrored as I've collected a spare 300gb..

I advise all our users to keep at least 20% spare capacity on their drives.

 

[N01Chris]

hmm, I thought raid sped up data transfer, in that instead of using one drive it would use both simultaneously (e.g half of a file would be copied from one drive and the half from the other or something along those lines), useful for video editing where you need really fast data transfer

 

[N01Chris]

Back to the original problem with that CF.

I did some tests with Blackmagic disk speed test on my mac mini with USB 3.0 and the Transcend 3.0 reader moving 1GB data chunks. Here are the results in MB/s:

USB3 4gb CF 300x 24 / 39 Duracel
USB3 16GB SD 36 / 40 Sandisk
USB3 8GB CF 600x 60 / 72 transcend
USB3 32GB CF 400x 30 / 8 transcend

Everything seems very good, and that SD Sandisk Extreme is very impressive. But just look at that 32GB Transcend. The read speed is awful. It is going back as we speak.
There is nothing wrong with my reader though

edit: is it best to contact Amazon or Transcend for replacement or returns?

I'm not sure its worth it, It doesn't really effect me that much, I usually get back from a shoot and set lightroom away downloading my photos and go off and do something else, download speed isn't that much of an issue its the clearing of the buffer in camera which in my tests of my 7d it was 9.9 seconds too clear the whole buffer (I started the camera after a burst in where i waited till the moment when it hit 0, started the timer and stopped it when it got back to 22) which I think isn't that bad for my needs especialy when it takes 4.5 seconds of 8fps too fill the buffer (presumably the transfer speed it fast enough to transfer some as it is going because 5*8 is 36! and the buffer says it should be 22)

edit: after conducting other tests the speed must only be 3.125 seconds of burst as it takes 25 photos in a burst and using maths 25/8 is 3.125 still not bad

edit edit: i did one of those tests with my trancend 32gb x400 card and I got 29.7MB/s write and 79.4MB/s read so I must have gotten a better version than you I think

 

[Pookeyhead]

yea but video files transfer from 70-120MB/s about the right speed for USB 3.0?

USB 3.0 theoretically is 5Gbits/sec. That's 500MB/sec. In reality, with overhead, you should see 400MB/sec. However, your 70-120MB/sec is more likely the speed of the hard drive, or device you are copying from. You may have a USB 3.0 external hard drive for instance, but the actual drive inside it may be only capable of 100MB/sec, which is average for most mechanical hard drives.

 

[neil_g]

Last post on this since it isn't exactly thread related....but the bare minimum, as per any definition of the phrase, is ONE drive archiving what's on the internal one.

A RAID1, as I proposed, is two drives in the same enclosure with identical data on each.
I further proposed the OP consider an SSD for his laptop, so that the RAID setup acts as an archive, and he pulls across onto the laptop's what he needs to work on/watch/listen to.

I get the dual independent drives and enclosures, but that's two power outlets needed, and the drives daisy-chained.
A solution, but not an elegant one.

I'm sitting here with a 10 yo FireWire enclosure, with a 6-7 yo Samsung drive in it - it's still not failed or dropped me in the pooper, besides being powered on 24/7 (mainly) and the drive spinning up and down on command.
You've got to understand the vast majority of people out there have NO backup plans or solution, so any time this crops up, it's better to advise they spend a moderate amount initially, after which they can then supplement or sell and go for something approaching the whole hog.

Sorry but you're giving bad advise regarding raid.

 

[neil_g]

hmm, I thought raid sped up data transfer, in that instead of using one drive it would use both simultaneously (e.g half of a file would be copied from one drive and the half from the other or something along those lines), useful for video editing where you need really fast data transfer

It would be negligible to be honest.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

edit edit: i did one of those tests with my trancend 32gb x400 card and I got 29.7MB/s write and 79.4MB/s read so I must have gotten a better version than you I think

hmm, did you just copy the same files back and forth? If that was the case, the read speed would be in fact buffer (RAM) to your HDD. The computers are too clever sometimes.
If yours is not as described please at least let Transcend know to make sure they become properly aware of this

 

[MIKEROPHONICS]

It would be negligible to be honest.

Some raid systems are purely configured for speed others are for data safety

 

[Pookeyhead]

re: USB 3.0..

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/01/07/usb3-10gig/1


Just bought a USB equipped computer, motherboard or card reader? Ooops!... it's already redundant

Unless you are using USB 3.0 as a hard drive bus, I wouldn't worry for memory card transfer etc. The current USB 3.0 is more than enough.

 

[N01Chris]

hmm, did you just copy the same files back and forth? If that was the case, the read speed would be in fact buffer (RAM) to your HDD. The computers are too clever sometimes.
If yours is not as described please at least let Transcend know to make sure they become properly aware of this

nope i downloaded a program to do it for me, cant quite remember the name (im on my phone atm) but it filled my whole card up with data (not sure what) and then copied it back (im presuming) to test it

 

[N01Chris]

hmm, did you just copy the same files back and forth? If that was the case, the read speed would be in fact buffer (RAM) to your HDD. The computers are too clever sometimes.
If yours is not as described please at least let Transcend know to make sure they become properly aware of this

I will but what is the expected speed of an x400 card? as I'm unsure atm

 

[neil_g]

Some raid systems are purely configured for speed others are for data safety

correct. however there was an article a while back about raid0 raptors vs a single. the result was that there was only a significant real world (not benchmark) performance increase worthy of the £ in very few conditions (i think that was a video editing app off the top of my head). everything else was a negligable increase.

SSD may be different, but kinda defeats the object for storage here.