The next time capsule

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by Serban, Mar 1, 2016.

  1. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #1
    I hope the next time capsule to have 512 or 1t SSD and get rid of the normal HDD
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    Wouldn't the SSD speed be wasted due to the slow ethernet (or wifi) speeds?
     
  3. Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #3
    depends of country
    so if you live in a country like mine, where we have from 100mbs the slowest to 1000mbs highest you can buy it and use it
    For other persons in other country with slow ethernet can remain or buy the current generation
    I didnt mean to replace the current generation just to make an ssd model
     
  4. poematik13 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    #4
    Time capsules are focused on economical storage space and not speed. A 1Tb SSD would be LESS space for MORE money- not a correct configuration for what the device is catered towards- mass local network storage for macs.

    A feature I'd like to see on the next model though is the ability to backup both iOS devices and OS X devices at the same time, instead of using iTunes or iCloud for iOS backups. Bringing the 3TB model as the base and offering a 5 or 6TB model as the high end would be nice too, but I believe there are current size limitations with the 2.5" laptop drives that it uses.
     
  5. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #5
    Yep, a complete waste for me. Wifi AC will top out very quickly, maybe 30-40MBps at best where as with an ethernet via a cable will it will be 130MBps over a 1GBe connection all day long.

    I'd wager most people would be looking for capacity not speed from a TM.
    Also what's the type of data being stored and read from the device.... SSDs are good for small random reads.
     
  6. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #6
    But why? My point is the speed of the SSD will be lost on the transmission of the data, even on ethernet, it will be too slow for the SSD speeds.

    Get a DAS hooked up to a thunderbolt port, then you'll get the transmission speeds you need.
     
  7. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #7
    Completely pointless. If you want fast storage, use thunderbolt. The Time capsule is a backup station, not a work station.
     
  8. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #8
    Well.... depends if you want to be tied to the storage via a cable or not.
    Time capsule is pointless, yes. But NAS devices in general are not.
     
  9. Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #9
    you guys speaks only for yourself with slow or mediocre ethernet . but for me 1T SSD would be nice for me personaly, and for many others who don't need 2 or 3 T(those who needs they can choose the existing TC)
    but when i backup for ex it takes too long for what imac and what ethernet i have, its clear the HDD inside TC is the problem. So if Apple created the macbook that has only 1 port but cost for most too much, i don;t think it will be a problem for Apple to make 1 model or 2 of TC with 512 and 1T ssd with 300mbs for those people who want perfection and has very good ethernet and willing to spend money for that
     
  10. AFEPPL, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016

    AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #10
    You miss the point.
    It's not slow ethernet - its 1GBe, ethernet simply will not transfer faster than 130MBps, thats the limit. Over wifi you with get 30-40MBps (IF and a big if, you are lucky). SSDs will make no difference. You simply cant push that amount of data over the protocol.

    Don't take my word for it, download black magic speed test, select the remote drive and test the throughput for both wired and wireless.

    Nothing stopping you opening up the TC and replacing the drive.

     
  11. Serban, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016

    Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #11
    so if i have wifi ac, my ethernet has 500mbs, and i have TC with SSD in it, i will still transfer with 30-40mbs?
    why? over the wifi i dll things with at least 25-30MBS(not Mbs) so why would be different ? since wifi ac can do it, my imac ssd can do it, and if i have ssd into the backup storage can do it...
     
  12. Mlrollin91, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016

    Mlrollin91 macrumors G4

    Mlrollin91

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Ventura County
    #12
    The other person which I am assuming you meant to quote said 30-40MBps, not 30-40mbps.

    Heres the deal. the TC has a 5400rpm drive that writes at speeds similar to 7200rpm drives, meaning it writes at about 120MBps. Gigabit Ethernet writes at a theoretical max speed of 125MBps. So using a 5400/7200rpm drive is all that is needed to write at theatrical max speeds. SSDs write at 200+MBps. You would never come close to those speeds, especially on WiFi. It would be pointless to have something that can write at 200MBps when the max you can send to it at a given time is 120MBps.

    OP: Search Apple Support threads. The idea has been tossed around since 2010, and this is the same issue that comes up every single time. Network is your issue.
     
  13. Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #13
    i dont think a normal hdd can read write with more than 70-80 Mbs
     
  14. Mlrollin91 macrumors G4

    Mlrollin91

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Ventura County
    #14
    Google is your friend:
    "In average, 5400 RPM hard drives only support 100MB/s read/write speeds. 7200 RPM Hard Drive. A 7200RPM hard drive is an improvement over the 5400RPM, but it is not considerably faster. In general, you can expect a read speed of about 128MB/s and a write speed of 120MB/s."

    https://www.cpureport.com/enhance-laptops-5400-rpm-hard-drive/

    You should really make sure you are specifying the correct bit rate. You keep giving us 'b' when we are talking about 'B'. 70mbps is only 8MBps which a HDD will definitely right faster than 8MBps.
     
  15. Serban, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016

    Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
  16. Mlrollin91 macrumors G4

    Mlrollin91

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Ventura County
    #16
    You're not understanding. The HDD writes at 120MBps, not 120mbps. So the write speed of the hdd is 960mbps.

    300Mbps = 37.5MBps. 1000Mbps = 125MBps (Which is the same as Gigabit Ethernet). A regular HDD can do 120MBps, but the theoretical max speed of 1000Mbps = 125MBps. So installing an SSD might give you an additional 5MBps at most. The expense of a 1TB SSD would far outweigh the benefit for an additionally 5MBps write speed.
     
  17. Serban thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
  18. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #18
    To push the speeds higher you will need devices that support link aggregation or for 10Gbe to be standard (or 40Gbe).
    The TC can't do that, this is why i mentioned NAS previously. I have link aggregation on my NAS device and i can push more than the limit of a single HHD or a single Gbe connection - which brings you to the next stumble.. You can simply stripe HHDs to provide that performance and you still don't need SSDs. You also need to look at the data, what data are you pushing? if it's a large sequential file (4k movie for example many be 50GB) then again SSDs don't really have an advantage, SSDs performance profile is small random reads where you are saving the seek time on the drive (no moving parts).

    So i get your curiosity, but it's a problem looking for a reason.
     
  19. mpainesyd macrumors 6502

    mpainesyd

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #19
    It does seem that the TC electronics /controller is also a bottleneck for transfer speed. I am getting nowhere near the theoretical best with ethernet cable. no point in SSD with the current system.
     
  20. Brian33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    USA (Virginia)
    #20
    That's a good idea of having a future TC do automatic iOS device backups! Even though I, and I expect most others, use iCloud backups, I think there would be a market for a TC that could do that. Especially now that current events in the U.S. have highlighted the fact that Apple can decrypt iOS backups to iCloud, but not encrypted iOS backups made locally via iTunes. (I believe I'm correct in that, and with the caveat "within any reasonable time period.")

    Just to correct your last sentence, though -- the Time Capsule (all generations) uses a standard-sized 3.5" HDD, not a 2.5" drive. As soon as I got my refurb 2 TB (latest gen), I swapped the 2 TB for a 5 TB Toshiba drive and it works perfectly. I think even a new 8 TB drive will work in the current TC.
     
  21. poematik13 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    #21
    Wow, I did not know it was a full size drive. They really crammed that thing in there, no wonder why the drive is diagonally placed.
     
  22. mrex macrumors 68020

    mrex

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Location:
    europe
    #22
    normal hdds are used to store data because it is cheap, reliable and fast enough to stream high quality data. i have movies on my nas and just storing movies to the 1tb ssd (2x because of raid1) would be simply the craziest thing ever done.

    1tb storage is nowadays way too small anyway.
     
  23. mpainesyd macrumors 6502

    mpainesyd

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #23
    Latest is that Apple is dropping products like Time Capsule :(
     
  24. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #24
    The "next" Time Capsule?

    There isn't going to be one.

    That book has been closed...
     
  25. richpjr macrumors 68030

    richpjr

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006

Share This Page