TI and e-SATA

[bmwisme]

Has anyone had success imaging to/from and external SATA drive (e-SATA)?

If so, what version of TI supports e-SATA?

Thanks,


USB is tooooooo sloooooowwww.

[etruss]

Originally Posted by bmwisme

Has anyone had success imaging to/from and external SATA drive (e-SATA)?

If so, what version of TI supports e-SATA?

Thanks,


USB is tooooooo sloooooowwww.

I tried a test with TI8 and an older SATA external drive. It worked but there was no difference in speed between USB2 and SATA.

[Colvin]

Originally Posted by bmwisme

Has anyone had success imaging to/from and external SATA drive (e-SATA)?

If so, what version of TI supports e-SATA?

I've been using a Thermaltake Silver River DUO (IDE/SATA - USB/eSATA) enclosure for some time with both XP and Vista Ultimate using a WD SATA2 250 gig HDD connected via eSATA. Since I can switch between USB or eSATA connectivity, I can and have checked the difference in speeds between the two. There is no question that when using the eSATA connection, backups and restores are considerably faster on my system. For example, it only takes c. 6 minutes to do a Full backup of my Vista system (24 gigs used space). I'm sure the CPU and RAM factors into my results as well, so YMMV. However, the fact remains that there is a noticeable difference when using USB vs. eSATA.

I have used both TI 9 and now the latest version of 10 with eSATA successfully.

[Brian K]

For general use in my computer, copying files from one drive to another, USB runs at 25 MB/sec. eSata runs at 40 MB/sec.

[bmwisme]

Originally Posted by Colvin

I've been using a Thermaltake Silver River DUO (IDE/SATA - USB/eSATA) enclosure for some time with both XP and Vista Ultimate using a WD SATA2 250 gig HDD connected via eSATA. Since I can switch between USB or eSATA connectivity, I can and have checked the difference in speeds between the two. There is no question that when using the eSATA connection, backups and restores are considerably faster on my system. For example, it only takes c. 6 minutes to do a Full backup of my Vista system (24 gigs used space). I'm sure the CPU and RAM factors into my results as well, so YMMV. However, the fact remains that there is a noticeable difference when using USB vs. eSATA.

I have used both TI 9 and now the latest version of 10 with eSATA successfully.

I should have been more specific - has anyone tried an image/restore from/to an external SATA (eSATA) drive from the TI System Restore CD.

Imaging operations to/from my external USB 2.0 hard drive are fairly fast while IN Windows, it's the imaging operations when booted from the restore CD that take forever! Restore my NTFS partition (56 GB) from my external USB drive takes about 5 hours if booted from CD. I was hoping that imaging/restoring to/from an external eSATA drive would be considerably faster.

[Long View]

what version and build of TI are you using ? and how much of the 56 gig is actual data ? 5 hours is far too long.

[seekforever]

One issue will be if the eSATA is obtained by "extending" a MB SATA port to a panel with an eSATA connector or by providing eSATA with an add-in card. The former case is likely to be recognized by the TI rescue CD, the add-in card may be more susceptable to a Linux driver issue. Only one way to find out - try it.

[Colvin]

Originally Posted by bmwisme

I should have been more specific - has anyone tried an image/restore from/to an external SATA (eSATA) drive from the TI System Restore CD.

http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/yep.gif In fact, I restored my 25 gig Vista partition the other day using the Boot Disk. My backup image was on my external drive (SATA 2) connected via an eSATA cable. It took just under 10 minutes to complete.... successfully, I might add. hehe Earlier today I restored my XP partition (12 gigs) the same way and that only took about 3 minutes to complete.

As I stated before, "time" is relative and dependent upon many factors. USB 2.0 has a maximum transfer rate of 480 megs/sec, while SATA 2 has a maximum tranfer rate of 3 gigs/sec. This is under ideal conditions, of course.

[foghorne]

Originally Posted by Colvin

USB 2.0 has a maximum transfer rate of 480 megs/sec, while SATA 2 has a maximum tranfer rate of 3 gigs/sec.

Not quite that fast, for start we should be stating bits per second, so the maximum theoretical rates are 480 Mbits/s and 3Gbits /s. Furthermore since every SATA byte is encoded into 10 bits the SATA2 rate is actually 8/10*3 =2.4 Gbits/s

F.

[shieber]

Damn disk drive manufacturers, the truth is always a smaller number.

Originally Posted by foghorne

Not quite that fast, for start we should be stating bits per second, so the maximum theoretical rates are 480 Mbits/s and 3Gbits /s. Furthermore since every SATA byte is encoded into 10 bits the SATA2 rate is actually 8/10*3 =2.4 Gbits/s

F.

[RTShaw]

Originally Posted by bmwisme

Has anyone had success imaging to/from and external SATA drive (e-SATA)?

If so, what version of TI supports e-SATA?

Thanks,


USB is tooooooo sloooooowwww.

ver 8, ver 10 both builds
mobo asus p4c800/ p4c800e, P5W DH Dlxe currently
no problems - Esata WD 250 gigger, WD 180 giggerjust buy a Esata case, slam a drive into the sucker and plug it up.
in the case of the Asus p4c800E i use a pci $17.00 card that give u 2 internal and 1 e-Sata port.
and its fast. at lot faster then my d-link DNS-323 NAS dual 500 segate drives (non raid mode).. running a gigabit network...
just appears as another drive in my computers, heck i even network em when needed.

[seekforever]

Originally Posted by RTShaw

...in the case of the Asus p4c800E i use a pci $17.00 card that give u 2 internal and 1 e-Sata port.
and its fast. ...

Have you got the make and model of the eSATA card handy? I'm in the market for one that has had a positive experience with TI.
Thanks

[Colvin]

My Antec NSK6500 case and Asus M2N-E board didn't have an integrated eSATA port, although the board has 6 SATA plugs. So I simply bought a $5 eSATA bracket that installs with one screw on the back of the case in any unused opening. It came with a 12" SATA cable which plugs into any SATA plug (port) on the motherboard. It's not only cheaper than buying a PCI card, it also doesn't utilitize a PCI slot.

[Brian K]

Originally Posted by Colvin

It's not only cheaper than buying a PCI card, it also doesn't utilitize a PCI slot.

Exactly what I'm doing.

[seekforever]

Originally Posted by Brian K

Exactly what I'm doing.

I would also do that but no extra SATA connectors.