LaCie Hub Now Shipping, Connects eSATA Drives via Thunderbolt

[g4cube]

Well, long term they are going to have trouble supporting that price point.
For now, with no competitors, they will get some buyers, but the functionality is limited.

Looks to me that this hub is a variation of their Little Big Disk. Perhaps they simply extend the existing internal SATA connectors to the rear panel. Benefit may be leveraging the existing design. I could be wrong.

Yeah but those are better turned into boxes that expose the RAID controller's PCI-e interface directly to TB.

While some of those external boxes with embedded controllers may have a PCI or PCIe card inside, many do not. The controller is embedded within, and there is no simple way to change it.

Several companies have announced and performed demos of Thunderbolt PCIe Expansion chassis, but to date, none are shipping. There are many, many issues at both the hardware and driver level when a PCIe card is several feet away from the processor instead of the expected several inches.

But again there isn't a large functionality overlap. LAN/SAN allow multiple computers to hook to shared storage. TB is a direct attached storage (DAS) solution. Again the single function/user high cost versus shared function amortized cost over multiple connections issue.

You pay more for FC, IB , or 10GbE, but you also get more. That more has different value for different people based upon how much/little they can leverage it to make a return on the higher costs.

Agreed. I just threw that out, mainly for the many suggestions that similar performance could be gained with a network connection. Most do not realize how slow 1 Gbps Ethernet is, or how expensive and complex the other faster solutions are.

On a different, related topic:

Belkin has previewed two variations of a more general purpose hub; once at the Intel Developer forum in the September, and again at CES in January. Neither was connected to any computer or working peripheral, so likely was just a mockup. Since their latest delivery estimate is Fall of 2012, perhaps the design is not as trivial as many unknowingly suggest here in the comments. It provides many of the ports people have been asking for - Ethernet, FireWire, USB, and perhaps eSATA; I just don't recall exactly. Essentially an Apple Thunderbolt Display without the display.

 

[deconstruct60]

L
While some of those external boxes with embedded controllers may have a PCI or PCIe card inside, many do not. The controller is embedded within, and there is no simple way to change it.

I meant more so as those older boxes are retired and new ones bought. For the external boxes that currently do present a eSATA connector they likely will continue to present one. In order to lower costs custom embedded boards are used inside the boxes. However, for several TB devices those internal custom boards are just variants of formerly discrete PCI-e boards that plug into a Mac Pro.

Several companies have announced and performed demos of Thunderbolt PCIe Expansion chassis, but to date, none are shipping. There are many, many issues at both the hardware and driver level when a PCIe card is several feet away from the processor instead of the expected several inches.

Plug-and-play and traversing multiple PCI-e switches is likely a bigger issue than the distance. Although yes the limitations of 10Gb/s over raw PCI-e v2.0 speeds will be increasingly be felt the farther away from the box.

The other likely contributing issue is over subscription. TB is fast so hook multiple devices that consume 3 Gb/s each to the same controller in PC and drive them all concurrently. You can find the same contention problems in PCI-e expander boxes that offer 2-10 times many lanes as actual connection the host computer's PCI-e slot connected to.






The bigger issue though is that drivers have not been designed for "hot plugging" ( or hot removal ) the cards. For PCI-e cards that has historically only been common practice on 24/7 "big iron" boxes.

On a different, related topic:

Belkin has previewed two variations of a more general purpose hub; once at the Intel Developer forum in the September, and again at CES in January. Neither was connected to any computer or working peripheral, so likely was just a mockup. Since their latest delivery estimate is Fall of 2012, perhaps the design is not as trivial as many unknowingly suggest here in the comments.

My bet is that it is cost issues. Not necessarily tech. The Belkin device is akin to Apple's Thunderbolt Display (i.e., docking station with embedded LCD screen ).

It provides many of the ports people have been asking for - Ethernet, FireWire, USB, and perhaps eSATA; I just don't recall exactly. Essentially an Apple Thunderbolt Display without the display.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/11/belkin-thunderbolt-express-dock-hands-on-video/

Belkin's has mutated a bit but at CES it was device with

Ethernet , Audio out , FW800 , HDMI , 3 USB 2.0 ( TB port on "front" and "back" )

[ The older variant of the device ...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/belkin-details-thunderbolt-express-dock/ ]


The HDMI is a rather curious addition to the complexity more so than other factors. (shooting for the "I use my TV as a monitor" market? ) No eSATA though. I think eSATA presents a problem since internally of the other controllers are also on a PCI-e switch. A single switch with USB , audio , 1 Gb Ethernet , FW , and eSATA hanging off of it is just inviting contention problems. Even if the TB controller can offer up its PCI-e x4 connection as 4 x1 lanes (and do the switching internally) there are only so much bandwidth going in/out of the TB controller to PCI-e.

It has very similar sticker shock , $299 , according to some reports (http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/09/belkin-announces-thunderbolt-express-dock/ ). It was TBD (too be determined) in other reports. If it was closer to the $199 that might do better. At $399 it is probably a show stopper for many.

 

[philipma1957]

I am sure you meant Hershey's, not hersey's!

And it is absolutely criminal what Hershey's has done to the Cadbury brand here in the US.

Connoisseurs of good chocolate will immediately be able to tell the difference between a Cadbury bar manufactured in the US, to those manufactured and/or sold in the Commonwealth countries!

Hershey corporate says that they tweak the taste and flavor to the preferences of the local market.

I say, bunk!

Once you taste real Cadbury chocolate made in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, you'll never buy a US made Cadbury bar in the US again. As for Canada, examine that label closely!

Sorry for the rant; I could not resist!

Yes I meant Hershey's but hersey might be a better name.


Correction


her·e·sy/ˈherəsē/
Noun:
Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.
Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted: "cutting capital gains taxes is heresy".





I am old enough to remember when Cadbury was a good chocolate bar. Your rant is merely a statement of truth. Now in the USA I mostly buy Green and Blacks

http://www.greenandblacks.com/us/


I am not sure if you can get it in the U.K.

back to t-bolt it is really good gear iMac owners finally have an easy fast fix for a trapped hdd. The 27 inch iMac could add 2 more t-bolt ports for the 2012 model and a second internal controller along with the matte screen and I will go back to owning one again. The interface is very stable i am using 2 lacie lbd's with 3 samsung ssd's in a raid0 and one samsung ssd as stand alone. my cost for 1tb of ssd was under 1.5k and if I choose i can add to the 2 drive daisy chain with the seagate adapter or a hi end screen. I am hoping that apple adds t-bolt ports more then any other option.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If this is the price all Thunderbolt ADAPTERS are going to cost...holy cow.

You could buy a pretty darn nice drive for that money...oh wait. You couldn't hook it up, though except by USB2 because all other formats cost $100-200 more to connect to Thunderbolt or Firewire. And people wonder why some of us want USB3 more than Thunderbolt. PRACTICAL every-day kind of devices cost a heck of a lot less with USB.

 

[deconstruct60]

You couldn't hook it up, though except by USB2 because all other formats cost $100-200 more to connect to Thunderbolt or Firewire.

Not sure where you are looking for Firewire drives.

about a $10 difference between USB3.0/eSATA and option with FW
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/EliteALmini/eSATA_FW800_FW400_USB

about a $40 difference between USB/FW/eSATA and FW400/USB2.0
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/1394/USB/EliteAL/eSATA_FW800_FW400_USB


G Tech drives.

G Drive Mobile USB 750 GB $129 1TB $179 ( http://www.g-technology.com/products/g-drive-mobile-usb.cfm )

G Drive Mobile ( FW 800 and USB 2.0 Interface ) 750 GB $159 1TB $199 ( http://www.g-technology.com/products/g-drive-mobile.cfm )

About a $30 difference.

And people wonder why some of us want USB3 more than Thunderbolt.

USB 3.0 is extremely likely to be more widely available than Thunderbolt.

 

[Pheo]

Yes I meant Hershey's but hersey might be a better name.

I am old enough to remember when Cadbury was a good chocolate bar. Your rant is merely a statement of truth. Now in the USA I mostly buy Green and Blacks

http://www.greenandblacks.com/us/


I am not sure if you can get it in the U.K.

back to t-bolt it is really good gear iMac owners finally have an easy fast fix for a trapped hdd. The 27 inch iMac could add 2 more t-bolt ports for the 2012 model and a second internal controller along with the matte screen and I will go back to owning one again. The interface is very stable i am using 2 lacie lbd's with 3 samsung ssd's in a raid0 and one samsung ssd as stand alone. my cost for 1tb of ssd was under 1.5k and if I choose i can add to the 2 drive daisy chain with the seagate adapter or a hi end screen. I am hoping that apple adds t-bolt ports more then any other option.

Wasn't g&bs started by a Briton before Cadburys bought them out?

 

[g4cube]

USB 3.0 is extremely likely to be more widely available than Thunderbolt.

I don't think any sane person is disputing this.

Sure this feeling may be buried in the snark and other more detailed responses, but clearly, once Ivy Bridge based computers are finally introduced, almost all Windows-based computers will have USB 3.0 ports, accompanied by USB 2.0 ports on those same computers.

Then the masses will have the experience of not paying attention to which port they connect to, and wondering why the performance of their external drive is different. And hopefully, they'll also remember to use quality cables to assure the best performance, and not be confused with interoperability issues.

Then they'll look to new terminology bandied about as to whether their USB 3.0 drive supports UAS or not.

Then they'll wonder why their cheap USB 3.0 hub they picked up won't connect at SuperSpeed, or even tell you it only connected at USB 2.0 speeds.

Don't get me wrong, it will be great to have native USB 3.0 support, built in, but there will be growing pains, too. And someone is sure to try and sell a $49 dollar USB 3.0 certified cable at retail!

 

[gnasher729]

You lead a sheltered life.

Many of the low-cost USB 2.0 drives have these Frankenstein drives with a USB micro connector instead of the expected SATA connector.

I must have been lucky then, because the last time I bought an external drive and swapped the contents with the smaller drive inside an MBP, it just had a tiny USB adapter attached to the SATA connector which then fit nicely onto the drive that used to be in the MBP. (Taking a screwless case apart without damaging it is fun

I can't quite see how this would save money, because it means you need different designs for internal and external hard drives, you have to make sure you build enough but not too many of each, and I don't think they are selling that many external drives. Instead you can build them all the same, with a mass produced adapter. And in the UK, if I buy a large external drive and can't swap it with my internal one, then I see an interesting discussion with the seller whether this device is "fit for purpose" or not, and the result would be a seller who is _really_ pissed off with the drive manufacturer.

 

[g4cube]

When you are manufacturing hundreds of thousands of drives, it indeed does make a difference, though your point about multi-use is valid, too. It is a business decision each company makes.

As for whether it violates UK sales/use laws, I don't think this applies. Warranty is for the entire unit, not for the pieces. As long as the manufacturer fulfills the provisions as in the warranty, all is OK.

No external product is sold with the guarantee that an internal drive can be extracted and used for other purposes.

As a side, but different example, Apple has unique drives inside their newer iMacs. Several pins on the SATA connector have been repurposed to bring out temperature status info. This means an ordinary SATA drive cannot be swapped in as a replacement, but original can be swapped out and read properly on a normal computer.

In my experience over the years, there are many examples of drives that are unique in their application, with seemingly "normal" connectors, but may have customization that limits use within the original product or application.

 

[appsforkids]

pricey

This is just a little to pricey I think, I'm in the USB 3 camp for external drives if this is the price point. Don't get me wrong, thunderbolt is awesome but I don't no how long Apple can realistically hold out on USB 3 I think they are gonna have to give. Then we would have the best of both worlds.

 

[brentsg]

Apple isn't "holding out" on USB3. They are waiting for Intel to incorporate it into their chipsets natively.

It has been stated already, but TB isn't competing with USB3. They will coexist with some overlap. USB3 will be the preferred connector for most people, within that overlap space.

 

[repoman27]

So, to sum up:

Although it's novel and has the potential to provide very good performance, it's considerably more expensive at this point in time to plug your external hard drives into your digital display output port rather than the other available alternatives.

Apple replaced the mini-DisplayPort on the 2011 Macs with an almost identical looking port that can provide all the same functionality as the mini-DP port that used to be there, but instead has a lightning bolt above it. Even though the 2011 Macs come with the exact same USB and FireWire 800 ports as the 2010 models did, many people believe that Apple really intended this new port to be a replacement for those and not for mini-DP.

Many people are angry, because they believe that augmenting the mini-DP port is what prevented Apple from including SuperSpeed USB ports on the 2011 Macs.

People who do not want to connect an external display to their Macs are convinced that this new port is a total failure because of how much it costs to do things that were never possible before with their digital display output port, such as use its massive bandwidth for non-display data or connect multiple devices to a single port via daisy-chaining.

Many people equate Apple's new digital display output port to FireWire, to which you could never connect an external display. But nobody used FireWire that much because it was more expensive than USB, and Thunderbolt products are also expensive, so both ports will probably disappear entirely as soon as everyone has USB 3.0. Those wishing to connect an external display be damned.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple isn't "holding out" on USB3. They are waiting for Intel to incorporate it into their chipsets natively.

...while Intel has been shipping Intel-branded motherboards with USB 3.0 for quite a long time.



It does not compute....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuBkWHfCuc​

 

[brentsg]

...while Intel has been shipping Intel-branded motherboards with USB 3.0 for quite a long time.

Apple will support USB3 when it is NATIVELY supported in the CPU chipset. They won't dedicate precious logic board real estate to a discrete chip.

Anyone can produce boards with an extra controller on a standard board. It makes no sense to add it with space, heat, and power consumption all critical.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple will support USB3 when it is NATIVELY supported in the CPU chipset. They won't dedicate precious logic board real estate to a discrete chip.

Anyone can produce boards with an extra controller on a standard board. It makes no sense to add it with space, heat, and power consumption all critical.

Actually, quite a few people here have said that they'd have preferred a USB 3.0 chip on their MacBooks, rather than the much larger, much hotter, and much higher consumption discrete T-Bolt chip (with only a few high priced peripherals that use T-Bolt).

...it does not compute.

 

[brentsg]

Actually, quite a few people here have said that they'd have preferred a USB 3.0 chip on their MacBooks, rather than the much larger, much hotter, and much higher consumption discrete T-Bolt chip (with only a few high priced peripherals that use T-Bolt).

...it does not compute.

Fine, don't buy one.

I'm not questioning Apple's motives, whether it is right or wrong. That was not the intent of my post.

It is factual information. Apple will support both TB and USB3 when the latter is native. It is what it is for now.

 

[AidenShaw]

Fine, don't buy one.

I'm not questioning Apple's motives, whether it is right or wrong. That was not the intent of my post.

It is factual information. Apple will support both TB and USB3 when the latter is native. It is what it is for now.

I won't buy one..

I'm just pointing out that your arguments against adding a discrete USB 3.0 controller don't fit with the fact that Apple decided to add a larger, hotter discrete T-Bolt controller.

So, perhaps Apple is in fact snubbing USB 3.0 to push T-Bolt.

Like Apple did with pushing 1394 over USB 2.0 - but we know the result of that gambit.

Apple fans can only hope that Tim will put an end to this nonsense, and ship systems with the ports that users want.

 

[repoman27]

...while Intel has been shipping Intel-branded motherboards with USB 3.0 for quite a long time.



It does not compute....

I love how you followed your own non sequitur with "It does not compute..."

The ability of Intel and other manufacturers to to produce a relatively small number of motherboards with third-party USB 3.0 controllers on them does not affirm the conclusion that Apple could have (or should have) included SuperSpeed USB controllers in the 2011 Macs.

The sum total of USB 3.0 enabled devices produced in 2011 was 70 million. Fewer than 120 million have rolled off the line since the first motherboard with a USB 3.0 port hit the streets some 29 months ago. Not a single motherboard with USB 3.0 has been sold by a manufacturer that had to write, verify and provide support for their own SuperSpeed USB driver. Very few managed to even update their BIOS or UEFI to support booting from devices attached to the USB 3.0 ports. All of the SuperSpeed host controllers available for use with Intel processors are backed by a single PCIe 2.0 lane, so unless you use a separate controller for each port, performance might be reduced. Even still, I've not seen any tests where one of these controllers manages to achieve better than 54% of the 5 Gbps speed claimed by the marketing materials for USB 3.0. They got it on the spec sheet though, and that's all that matters, right?

If AMD was able to release a chipset with integrated USB 3.0 in 2011, then by your logic Intel could have as well. Do you really think it's all just a conspiracy to prevent users from having the ports they want, or do you think it could be that two of the largest publicly traded electronics companies in the world occasionally have to make legitimate engineering decisions?

Apple fans can only hope that Tim will put an end to this nonsense, and ship systems with the ports that users want.

The sales of Macs increased steadily in 2011, while most other vendors experienced declining sales despite the fact that they did offer models with USB 3.0. In light of this, it would seem more logical to conclude that what users actually wanted was a well engineered and thoughtfully designed PC rather than to fixate on having the newest version of one particular port.

And incidentally, the first Mac with USB 2.0 came out less than 18 months after the first PC to offer it. And at that time Apple was using PowerPC chips, not Intel, so it wasn't like they could just capitalize on Intel's integration of USB 2.0 into the chipset back then. I'm a little curious about what you mean by pushing 1394 over USB 2.0?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple will support USB3 when it is NATIVELY supported in the CPU chipset. They won't dedicate precious logic board real estate to a discrete chip.

You mean like that giant one they dedicated to Thunderbolt???

Anyone can produce boards with an extra controller on a standard board. It makes no sense to add it with space, heat, and power consumption all critical.

You mean like the one they used for Thunderbolt?

 

[ksgant]

Because that market instantly starts to crater once Apple ships boxes with USB 3.0 on-board. They'd be left with a static and shrinking market of those interim TB capable Macs that skipped adding USB 3.0.

The other reason is that there is likely more long term value in a USB 3.0 + DVD + FW docking station box than in something that is purely a USB 3.0 hub. However, there is not much value in making a USB 3.0 device targeted at Macs until Apple puts mainstream xHCI based USB 3.0 driver support into OS X. A significant issue in USB 3.0 adoption on Mac is also Apple deliver the necessary software.

Finally, until Intel ships the much lower cost Port Ridge controllers (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...lt-controller-could-broaden-reach-of-spec.ars) which can only be used in "chain ending" ( devices with just 1 port that is pragmatically data only) it is going to be tough to hit the very low price point people are going to likely expect for such a device.

You misunderstand me. I'm not looking for Apple to support USB 3. Keep Thunderbolt all it wants. But what I'd like to see, and this is something that was talked about when Thunderbolt was announced, is a 3rd party hub that hooks USB 3 devices into a hub, that then plugs into the Mac via Thunderbolt. Why can't this happen?

 

[deconstruct60]

You misunderstand me. I'm not looking for Apple to support USB 3. Keep Thunderbolt all it wants. But what I'd like to see, and this is something that was talked about when Thunderbolt was announced, is a 3rd party hub that hooks USB 3 devices into a hub, that then plugs into the Mac via Thunderbolt. Why can't this happen?

"Can't happen" is a different question of whether it is a profitable or prudent investment to make and sell. Apple could make pink iMacs with disco lights that flash in a pattern along the edges. That probably isn't a big enough market to deliver a competitive return on investment compared to other projects they can work on.... so there are no pink iMacs. Possible to construct isn't the issue.


There was alot of talk by many folks who do not make peripherals about what LightPeak and then Thunderbolt was going to do.

It is also substantially different issue for there to be a TB device with several value properties that includes a USB 3.0 port ( USB + FW400 + multi-media card reader) and a devices that is purely a USB 3.0 hub/expander. The latter has major problems competing against PCs that have USB 3.0 ports built in.


And yes you should care that Apple takes on ownership if USB 3.0 drivers. If Apple doesn't fold the upgrade and maintenance of those drivers into the OS X costs then the custom drivers that a 3rd party would compose only adds to the device cost. [ There are more than few folks who wailed about Rosetta being retired because that meant their legacy PPC drivers stopped working. The 3rd party vendors had stopped updating those drivers. ] USB 3.0 is a hardware and software solution. If don't have xHCI drivers then really don't USB 3.0. One reason USB 3.0 is taking off in the overall PC market is that Windows 8 is going to have built-in support for USB 3.0. The vast majority of PCs being sold today were designed with Windows 8 in mind.


The TB controllers to make the "low cost" , single protocol (only USB 3.0 , only FW , only ... ) dongle adapters to TB have only recently shipped. There is a Port Ridge controller now that can make a chain ending dongle with at relatively low cost ( bus powered and small size). So far it did not make much business sense to try to build those kind of dongles with higher priced and more complex controllers. That is a huge reason why they didn't appear.

 

[jwsmiths]

Just got mine

Came in end of last week but I was on vacation over the weekend so I didn't get to really mess around with it until today.

I can say it definitely delivers eSATA speeds. My DS4600 and Drobo S (2nd gen) were able to swap some large files at ~80MB/s sustained with bursts up to 120MB/s+. Compared favorably with the 40MB/s they were getting when daisy chained via FW800.

The Drobo S however had to go back onto FW800 because the whole system seemed less reliable when the Drobo was attached via the LaCie eSata adapter - and AppleFileServer has been more prone to crashing ever since I made the change period, but seeing as how Lion Server still has bugs maybe that's just chance.

I guess of note also the Drobo Dashboard and SmartNAVI cannot see their respective drives behind the LaCie adapter.

 

[ksgant]

cool

 

[deconstruct60]

I guess of note also the Drobo Dashboard and SmartNAVI cannot see their respective drives behind the LaCie adapter.

May be the Dashboard software

"... At this particular time, we do not support the use of so-called "multi-lane" eSATA cards. ... "
http://support.drobo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/545/~/what-specific-esata-cards-are-recommended?

Thunderbolt should appear as a PCI-e switch (which it should care about) and the dual ported eSATA connection as a 'multiple lane cards" in a PCI-e slot.

Nothing popped up right away in web search for SmartNAVI but suspect a similar issue. Namely, a limited number of eSATA cards it is compatible with.

One interesting thing that Thunderbolt is going to bring is many more users pragmatically deployment PCI-e cards in new combinations/configurations that haven't been tried before.

 

[Magrathea]

You are missing the point

For those who are complaining about the price , you guys are missing the point:

• This is for semi pro / pro video editors - all others stick with fw800 or USB3. Do you know how much a fiber channel raid card is ($800) and the cable is $50 too! Try putting that in your mac mini or MBA!
• if I have existing drivers that are esata then this is the cheapest, fastest way to go. Sure it's not cheap and yes a cable for $50 is a rip off.

For anything else apart from some esoteric esata devices to connect to your new mac it's not really a bargain. If you're just starting out with video editing then go with TB drives right off the bat.

I have a cheapy Win 7 laptop next to me that has an esata port on the side of it - shame the apple for deciding that we needed FW800 vs the "everymans" esata.