Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 25, 2013, 08:27 AM   #26
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanka View Post
The slowest is the WD green, avaraging 90MB/S sequential write. That is one of the most used large storage drives (all the faster ones are often 1Tb or smaller) together with the Samsung Spinpoint series (missing in the test). So that quite matches the speed of FW800, and it matches my real life experience between USB3 and FW: copying the complete content for backup (many mixed size files) is only giving 5% speed difference between the two (on the small stuff FW 800 also wins some times). Reading speed is not that important, again, big drives are mostly used to store a lot, and at read (serving movies etc) throughput is not so important.

And you know what is the fastest here on my 2012 mini: reading from the USB2/3 drive and write it to the FW800 drive. If write and read are on the same bus, it is much slower.
You'll have to point to me where the WD Green drive is the most used external? About 6 months ago Seagate went to a single drive for all of their Mechanical Drives, so ALL of my externals I purchased on Black friday (all 6 of them) were the Seagate 3TB 7200 RPM drives that have a sequential read/write average of 150MB/s. Oh and Samsung mechanical drives no longer exist which is why they were absent. Seagate bought them out over a year ago.

So rather than make up statistics, please provide me with data that shows that (non-existent) Samsung drives and WD Green drives are the most purchased external drives today.

Edit: Further, the Firewire 800 would still even starve a WD Green at the fastest transfer speeds when the drive is fairly empty. It isn't until the drive is half full or better that the drive would be putting out at or below Firewire 800.
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 09:41 AM   #27
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanka View Post
The slowest is the WD green, avaraging 90MB/S sequential write. That is one of the most used large storage drives (all the faster ones are often 1Tb or smaller) together with the Samsung Spinpoint series (missing in the test). So that quite matches the speed of FW800, and it matches my real life experience between USB3 and FW: copying the complete content for backup (many mixed size files) is only giving 5% speed difference between the two (on the small stuff FW 800 also wins some times). Reading speed is not that important, again, big drives are mostly used to store a lot, and at read (serving movies etc) throughput is not so important.

And you know what is the fastest here on my 2012 mini: reading from the USB2/3 drive and write it to the FW800 drive. If write and read are on the same bus, it is much slower.
Aside from the mentions of most popular drives and fw800 beating internals; are you simply unaware that even USB 3.0 would struggle to be faster in thevreal world than SATA II (and no contest at all up against SATA III). With Firewire 800 being a lot slower than SATA II, I fail to see how any arguament for a FW external drive being better than internals.

Btw do you have source to the drive stats in your post please?
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, an iPad Mini Retina, a PC & a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 11:03 AM   #28
53x12
macrumors 68000
 
53x12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
You'll have to point to me where the WD Green drive is the most used external? About 6 months ago Seagate went to a single drive for all of their Mechanical Drives, so ALL of my externals I purchased on Black friday (all 6 of them) were the Seagate 3TB 7200 RPM drives that have a sequential read/write average of 150MB/s. Oh and Samsung mechanical drives no longer exist which is why they were absent. Seagate bought them out over a year ago.

So rather than make up statistics, please provide me with data that shows that (non-existent) Samsung drives and WD Green drives are the most purchased external drives today.

Edit: Further, the Firewire 800 would still even starve a WD Green at the fastest transfer speeds when the drive is fairly empty. It isn't until the drive is half full or better that the drive would be putting out at or below Firewire 800.
Quote:
Originally Posted by costabunny View Post
Aside from the mentions of most popular drives and fw800 beating internals; are you simply unaware that even USB 3.0 would struggle to be faster in thevreal world than SATA II (and no contest at all up against SATA III). With Firewire 800 being a lot slower than SATA II, I fail to see how any arguament for a FW external drive being better than internals.

Btw do you have source to the drive stats in your post please?
Guys, pay no attention to blanka. If you follow his posts/history of posts, you realize he just trolls and says completely incorrect and false information. Plus he will never support his statements with facts that he can site. Please ignore him/her.
53x12 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 11:07 AM   #29
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Guys, pay no attention to blanka. If you follow his posts/history of posts, you realize he just trolls and says completely incorrect and false information. Plus he will never support his statements with facts that he can site. Please ignore him/her.
Truer words have never been spoken. The problem is, so many new people join these forums and read his posts and will believe that he is correct. Since we no longer have the rating system, we have to do something to get the facts right! At least with the down vote, someone new could come in and see negative rating and have a pretty good idea that they should skip that info....
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 11:12 AM   #30
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
is there not an ignore option to not see posts by specified member?

that would make it easier.

Also my only problem with people like this really is that novices and newbies might very well take their info as true. I feel I must speak up and offer correct (or at least verifiable) info to those being misled.

.....need a more strict Banhammer.....
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, an iPad Mini Retina, a PC & a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 11:23 AM   #31
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Hey guys blanka is not that wrong about fw800 3.5 inch vs an internal 5400 1tb hdd.


first off if you use a big fast external like the older 3.5 inch samsung 1tb in an fw800 it has really good iops. So it will work better then any 3tb external seagate will even if you use t-bolt. It will only be quicker at iops the 4k read write random. those samsungs had some of the beat random read write times of any mechanical hdd.

since they are still slow the fw800 does not get flooded. running many ops. It would take me a lot to show all the info but if you run an external samsung 1tb 3.5inch it is fast. for all but long copies. I will try to find some iop info. this is all from memory so don't jump on me if I am miss recalling this.



http://www.ssdreview.com/review/comp...1/iometer.html


the iops are




Samsung Spinpoint F3EG HD105SI 1,000GB 3.5" 1AJ10001

Product / Firmware Benchmark Result
Read 4K Random higher is better
1%
0.86 MB/s 220 IOPs
Read 4K Random Access Time Average lower is better
95%
291.26 ms
Write 4K Random higher is better
1%
0.87 MB/s 223 IOPs
Write 4K Random Access Time Average lower is better
95%
286.60 ms


so these would not be hurt by a fw800 setup.

let me find the iops for the internal 5400rpm 1tb in the mini.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3270-8.html



http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/R/346...k_rnd_read.png



http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/S/346..._rnd_write.png



now if you look at the iops on the 2.5 inch hdds


none of them are 220 read or 223 write. the best are 150 or so. this means that he is at least partly correct .




the reason I had any knowledge of this was I had a 2009 iMac the first 27 inch. I hated the 1tb seagate in it. it was a 7200 rpm but it always felt slow.

I purchased this from owc


http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/hard-.../RAID/Desktop/

ran it with 4 spinpoint 1tb hdds in a raid0 used a fw800 to hook it up and it was far faster then the internal hdd as a boot drive. If I looked long enough I may be able to find some scores on it. The iops were really good for hdds.


Need less to say the iops hdds are really slow as a snail compared to an external ssd in a t-bolt.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 12.37.09 PM.png
Views:	8
Size:	479.2 KB
ID:	392472   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-01-25 at 12.38.34 PM.png
Views:	6
Size:	607.2 KB
ID:	392473  

Last edited by philipma1957; Jan 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM.
philipma1957 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 12:18 PM   #32
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipma1957 View Post
Hey guys blanka is not that wrong about fw800 3.5 inch vs an internal 5400 1tb hdd.
.
I don't disagree about a 3.5" Firewire vs the 1TB 2.5" 5400 HDD, if you really want to install your OS on a mechanical drive (either of which will be blown out of the water by an SSD anyway). With that said, MOST users are going to use external drives for Data storage. That means that sequential reads and writes are more important since you are generally copying large files onto it. Modern drives (which by the way, your examples are drives from a few years ago) can push almost 200MB/s which means firewire on large transfers (like in Data storage) would be a huge bottleneck.
__________________
rMBP 11,2 15" 2.0Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
MBA 6,2 13" 1.7Ghz w/ 256GB SSD
Mac Mini 6,2 2.3ghz w/ 240GB SSD + 1TB
Mac Pro 1,1 w/ 8 cores @ 2.66 w/ 240GB SSD
paulrbeers is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 12:54 PM   #33
53x12
macrumors 68000
 
53x12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
I don't disagree about a 3.5" Firewire vs the 1TB 2.5" 5400 HDD, if you really want to install your OS on a mechanical drive (either of which will be blown out of the water by an SSD anyway). With that said, MOST users are going to use external drives for Data storage. That means that sequential reads and writes are more important since you are generally copying large files onto it. Modern drives (which by the way, your examples are drives from a few years ago) can push almost 200MB/s which means firewire on large transfers (like in Data storage) would be a huge bottleneck.
Exactly.
53x12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 01:04 PM   #34
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulrbeers View Post
I don't disagree about a 3.5" Firewire vs the 1TB 2.5" 5400 HDD, if you really want to install your OS on a mechanical drive (either of which will be blown out of the water by an SSD anyway). With that said, MOST users are going to use external drives for Data storage. That means that sequential reads and writes are more important since you are generally copying large files onto it. Modern drives (which by the way, your examples are drives from a few years ago) can push almost 200MB/s which means firewire on large transfers (like in Data storage) would be a huge bottleneck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Exactly.
I also agree and I don't use firewire any more.

It is just that he managed to finally make a statement that could be true in some cases.

Most of the time I argue against him but this time he could be kind of correct.


Myself I am liking the oversized fusion build I did bigtime.

It is really a nice setup I am waiting on some more cables and will build a few more.

Oh I have a 4tb hitachi 7200rpm for storing movies/tv big folders it copies at 150 to 160mbs via t-bolt.
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A 2011 base mac mini with 16gb of ram would be as fast as the upcoming 2012 mini? Che Castro Mac mini 16 Sep 17, 2012 07:02 PM
Macbook Pro (2011/2012) or Mac Mini (2011)? pbmagnet4 Mac mini 6 Jun 25, 2012 02:05 PM
Macbook Pro (2011/2012) or Mac Mini (2011)? pbmagnet4 Buying Tips and Advice 4 Jun 20, 2012 08:16 AM
Macbook Pro (2011/2012) or Mac Mini (2011)? pbmagnet4 MacBook Pro 1 Jun 19, 2012 03:39 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC