External Firewire boot SSD?

[rnb2]

I wonder how many of these previous posters have actually tried the set up that they say is pointless?

It seems that rnb2 has tried it and thinks it's a reasonably useful set up for him/her.

Thats good enough for me to try it myself, when my set up and situation allows.

Would I spend money on his experience alone - maybe not. I'd probably look for a few others with similar experience first.

In my case I have the ssd already, just not the time/availability right now.

I suspect most are looking at the SSD numbers that are always thrown around (250+ MB/s read rates, etc) and at the limitations of FW800 and assuming that you lose so much of what you are spending the money for as to make it not worthwhile. However, much of the benefit of an SSD is actually in its ability to do ten things at once with no drama, and that sort of behavior is not dramatically different in a FW800 enclosure than on a SATA port. OS files and Applications are small enough that, while SATA would certainly be faster, you'd be looking at things taking .1 seconds vs .3 seconds.

I've been running my i7 27" iMac in this configuration since I got it in March, and it's been fine. Definitely faster than booting from the internal, and a user experience I have no qualms about recommending.

Finally, I'm a he

Rick

 

[Paulywauly]

Message to the people out there who have tried this, which SSDs do you use?

 

[rnb2]

Message to the people out there who have tried this, which SSDs do you use?

I'm using 80GB Intel X25m 1st-generation SSDs in my setup. At this point, just about any current SSD should be fine for this application, since you're not going to be seeing a difference in transfer speeds due to FW800 limitations.

If you want to future-proof things a bit and give yourself the option of putting the SSD inside a future machine and seeing the best possible performance, then look to a Sandforce drive (OWC Mercury Extreme Pro, or anything at Newegg that lists 285MB/s Read & 275MB/s write). For OS/Applications use, the Intel X25m drives are also fine - their write performance isn't up to Sandforce levels, but that isn't critical for an OS drive.

I still haven't used half of my 80GB drive - this is with relocating my user folder to the internal SATA drive, of course - and I have a ton of applications (but not the full CS5 suite - just Photoshop). A Sandforce SSD in the 60GB range is probably fine for this application, and those can be had for ~$130US these days. The Intel 80GB is running around $150US with rebate at Newegg.

 

[rtrt]

However, much of the benefit of an SSD is actually in its ability to do ten things at once with no drama, and that sort of behavior is not dramatically different in a FW800 enclosure than on a SATA port. OS files and Applications are small enough that, while SATA would certainly be faster, you'd be looking at things taking .1 seconds vs .3 seconds.

Certainly makes sense to me even if it doesn't to others

Will def try it over the festive

Finally, I'm a he

always pays not to assume as it can offend

 

[miata]

External FW800 OWC Pro SSD 120 is wicked fast

OK. What can I say. This makes all the difference in the world.

I'm running an early 2008 MPB 15 with 4 GB RAM. Much fast than the internal TravelStar 320 7200 RPM. I'm using 103 GB at the moment with 119.69 capacity. The enclosure is the OWC on-the-go enclosure connected via FW800.

Mail.app starts much faster and global searches across my 5.6 GB of mailboxes are almost instantaneous. All apps open much faster. Fusion is a lot faster as well.

Next, I'll try to boot this bad boy with my iMac and then install it in my MBP.

 

[ag-]

I just installed OWC Mercury Extreme SSD's (60gb and 120gb) to put in my late 2006 C2D imac and macbook air, I must say the difference is amazing (been using them less than 12 hours now).
I don't know if I am limited by the SATA1 bus, but certainly thinkgs book up an open much faster than before.

 

[Sensamic]

I bought the 240GB OWC Mercury SSD in the on-the-go external enclosure on April. Its amazing. The enclosure is transparent and very small. Fits in the pocket perfectly and I can take it with me anywhere to use it with my other computers. For example, I use it as boot drive with the iMac 27 and sometimes with my Mac Mini as HTPC.

I bought it mainly because I wanted a quiet computer. I couldnt stand the noise of the Seagate drive in the iMac. It was soooooo painful to hear every damn second! I need to work in silence. Since I got the SSD Ive had the most happy time with my iMac. You cannot believe how cool and nice it is to work at nights with absolutely no noise. I remember how painful it was to open any app on the iMac and hear that ugly noise. When opening Mail, when surfing with Safari, when playing video or music, etc.

I can tell you there is a small boost in speed overall. Apps open 2 times faster. The iMac turns on in less than half the time with the internal HD. It runs all very very smooth. Obviously, I cannot enjoy the full speed of the SSD. Im using it via FW800. But I dont care at all. My main goal was to make the iMac as quiet as possible.

Right now Im writing here on the forum, downloading movies with Vuze and jDownloader, many windows open with youtube videos on Safari, Mail open, Textedit open and i CANT hear anything!!!

The SSD was VERY expensive, but there is not one day I thought it was a bad investment. I didnt want to open the iMac either. Too risky. I could have broken it or something...

All I do is connect the drive via FW800 to the iMac, turn it on and then eject the internal drive. After some minutes it powers down and... SILENCE.

Dont hesitate on buying an SSD. Its great.

In the future, whenever I want, I can take the SSD out of the external enclosure and put it inside another iMac or Macbook Pro, etc. So you can still use the SSD in the future in other ways. It wont be attached to the external enclosure forever.

OWC On-The-Go Mercury SSD 240GB.

 

[miata]

OK. What can I say. This makes all the difference in the world.

I'm running an early 2008 MPB 15 with 4 GB RAM. Much fast than the internal TravelStar 320 7200 RPM. I'm using 103 GB at the moment with 119.69 capacity. The enclosure is the OWC on-the-go enclosure connected via FW800.

Mail.app starts much faster and global searches across my 5.6 GB of mailboxes are almost instantaneous. All apps open much faster. Fusion is a lot faster as well.

Next, I'll try to boot this bad boy with my iMac and then install it in my MBP.

Wanted to follow-up...

I wasn't able to get my iMac to boot the MBP system. I just went ahead and installed it in the MPB. The boot time went from 45 seconds in the external FW800 on-the-go enclosure to 20 seconds in the internal bay (login screen).

I have to say that I was very impressed with the overall responsiveness I got with the external drive though. My iMac will definitely be getting a FW800 SSD when the prices drop a bit more.

Very nice upgrade.

 

[groovyf]

Thought I'd chip in with my experience of an Intel X25-M G2 (160GB) in an external FW800 enclosure (one of these) in my late-2009 iMac 27" Quad-core i5

There was a noticeable performance increase on boot and app loading (as I expected).
Photoshop for instance was up in 4 seconds or so as opposed to 11 or so. Firefox, etc showed similar speed improvements.

I already had the SSD from a PC I sold, so my expense was just the external enclosure.

 

[studbike]

I've tried using an external firewire 400 ssd, and i wish i had just decided to keep it that way forever. You can read all about my problems in the thread I started.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1063594/

I didn't run any benchmarks, but I did use the system with the SSD installed via firewire 400 for several hours, and there was a HUUUUUGE improvement over the internal drive in terms of startup time and app loading time. I also noticed a difference in streaming video playback. Whereas clicking fullscreen or seeking in HD youtube videos used to present small split-second hickups in the past, it was now as responsive and snappy as could be. The amount of time I spent looking at the spinning wheel thing was cut down by maybe 80% overall.

The worst part? When I installed my ssd internally, I didn't notice any difference in speed from using it via firewire. The theoretical max of firewire 400 is still very fast, and I doubt the SSD can oversaturate the bus by much if it all, as has been stated by many other experts above me.

I would just leave it next to the desk and be satisfied with it, especially since a tiny 2.5" SSD won't require the care that a traditional hard drive would need (cooling, sudden movements, etc). You can even mount it permanently on the bottom of the stand.

 

[Newt100]

For a single IO (read or write) not much time comes from the transport over the bus. This would typically only be about 1 ms. Most of the time for an IO is related to the mechanical aspects of a physical disk drive. The disk must spin until the location to be read from or written to is under the physical read/write head (rotational position sensing and delay that adds up to about 1 ms or more). Then there is the seek time for the read/write head to move to the right track that can be 7 to 8 ms or more (based on an average of 1/3rd stroke based upon where the disk head was during the last IO). Then, there is the reading/writing of the data from/to the disk (another about 1 ms). Also, there is the queue time waiting for your turn. So, all this adds up to 10 or more ms per each IO.

What this means is that bus speed does not make much difference for a single IO, and only matters if the total number of IOs per second exceeds the maximum the bus can service. It is likely that most applications do not drive enough IO to exceed FireWire 800 capacity. However, this is where real life experience is helpful. So, it is very helpful when folks who have installed a SSD report back their experience. Thanks to those who have done so!

Many of us in the performance community are interested in quantitative analysis (i.e. exact numbers from repeatable processes). So, if anyone with an external SSD can post things such as 19 seconds to boot, and 2 seconds to load a specific application that would give the type of info that we thrive on.

 

[Bmaintz]

OK, let's put another poker in the fire...
What about the speed of the new USB 3.0 compared to the Firewire 800??

Rumor is that Imac will have a USB 3.0 in the refresh in 2011...
Also may have a Firewire 1600...

 

[jim4spam]

Update with some numbers

Hi guys.

I was inspired to have a go with an SSD due to mainly rnb2's comments. So I bought a 120Gb drive from OWC with a FW800 enclosure (on-the-go), as the prices just dropped from 249 to 239USD. I had a macbook that it would go into it, if didn't work well as an external.

So my setup is a 2.4Ghz iMac from 2007. I put a 1Tb internal drive in last year when the original drive died. It's now about 50% full, and on start up we have it so that Mail and Skype open automatically. I have a couple of external FW800 drives on the chain, which I think slows boots times a little. But these numbers following are on a like for like basis.

Total boot time was between 57s and 1m15s before (booting off the internal) and afterward 33s (booting off the SSD via FW800). This includes opening of those two apps, which BTW, Mail seems especially quick and responsive.

Photoshop (the largest app we have) opens in 28s off the internal and 22s via SSD FW800.

So overall it's like the some of the previous posters were saying: it's a little quicker overall, and much quicker on some operations.

Now I have a couple of questions:
1) do you think having other drives (such as my time machine) on the same FW800 daisy chain will make a speed difference (as it'll take up FW800 bandwidth), so should I move my time machine over to FW400?
2) why do you think while booting-pressing-alt, the new FW800 SSD does NOT appear as a choice every time, but it boots fine from the FW800 SSD when chosen as the boot drive in System Preferences. The new FW800 is the first in the daisy chain (i.e. nearest the computer). The other two drives daisy chained are a 500Gb bootable, and a 1.5Tb time machine. (Both OWC Elite-Al.)

Cheers
Jim

 

[jim4spam]

In response to my own question 1, it would seem that the FW800 and FW400 ports both use the same controller, therefore no advantage in moving the time machine to the FW400 port. Does that seem right?