FireWire 800 vs internal SATA speeds

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by maclover001, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. maclover001 macrumors 6502a

    maclover001

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #1
    Hey guys,

    Using a PowerMac G5 as a web server, and I need more storage.

    Is FW800 any slower than the Powermac G5's internal SATA connections?
    Two bays is not enough storage for me.

    Thanks
     
  2. iVoid macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #2
    I believe the SATA will be faster than FW800, but for webserver functions you'll never notice. Your bottleneck will be the Internet connection speed.
     
  3. maclover001 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    maclover001

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #3
    I'm on Shaw's "Nitro" internet plan. Speeds are plenty.

    Thanks for the info.
     
  4. Flash SWT macrumors 6502

    Flash SWT

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
  5. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #5
    Hard drives are much slower then SATA or even firewire 400. So you shouldn't notice a difference. How do you like shaw nitro? Is that the same thing as the "warp" one currently offered?
     
  6. NoNameBrand macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Location:
    Halifax, Canada
    #6
    They're still loads slower than FW800. Or FW400.



    :confused:
    Er... no.

    I've got a pair of drives in my Mac Pro that will each hit 110MB/s. That's 880Mb/s. What do you suppose the 400 and 800 in the Firewire designations refer to (hint: it's the theoretical interface speed in Mb/s).
     
  7. maclover001 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    maclover001

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #7
    They changed the name to "Warp" a month or so ago, but I'm pretty sure its the same plan. The price is a bit high though, I wouldn't bother with it unless you are running a high-traffic webserver.
     
  8. gzfelix macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Location:
    Charlottetown, PE
    #8
    Usually for a SUPER BUSY web server, the limitation is not in the bandwidth from hard drive to the controller, but in the hard drive itself. Its physical limitations (rotation speed and seek speed) are more likely to affect the efficiency.
     
  9. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #9
    Must be a rather damn big website if two whole internal drives aren't big enough. A rather fantastically stupendous website. How many websites have more than 2TB of content? Er.....

    And even USB drive carriers would be more than fast enough for adding extra storage. As said above, the limit is at internal drive random access speeds, not sequental transfer or transfer bandwidth. Random access speeds are usually 1/10th or worse of sequential access. That's why servers fork out for small but fast 15k Cheetahs or Intel XM-25 Flash drives.
     
  10. fiercetiger224 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    #10
    Does the Power Mac G5 have SATA I or II ports? It's 1.5gbps for SATA I and 3.0gbps for SATA II. But if you have either or, it's not going to be much faster than Firewire 800, due to the physical limitations of the hard drive. The only way SATA would prove to be faster is if the hard drives were in a RAID array. But from what I'm hearing, you don't have them in a RAID array.

    I think if you really wanted to go for speed, is get a PCI-X or PCI Express SATA card (depending on which Power Mac G5 that you have). Otherwise, Firewire 800 is plenty speedy.
     
  11. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #11
    For best performance, set up RAID for fastest accessing times (and perhaps redundancy).

    SATA is better. There are kits that add more internal drive spaces to PowerMac G5.
     

Share This Page