Promise Debuts 4X Thunderbolt RAID Box

Status
Not open for further replies.

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
Interesting. Hope they will offer a PC version without drives.
No point in wasting money on four 250GB drives just to replace them with something 'better' :)

 

Zeppelingcdm

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
21
0
18,510
0
Read an article in Popular Mechanics where they tested Thunderbolt against USB 2.0 and 3.0. To sum it up Apple has hyped the Thunderbolt way past real world speeds. Basically their blowing smoke up our asses once again. Thunderbolt came in above USB 2.0 but just barely passed USB 3.0 by 2.2 seconds. Add in the extra cost of having thunderbolt and the value is not really there. (The transfers were done to and from an SSD equipped Macbook Air for those who might be wondering.) Thought I'd share :)
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,686
0
19,810
10
[citation][nom]amythompson172[/nom]How much is it...?http://goo.gl/W94VJ[/citation]
How much is it? I don't quite think you belong on a hardware forum methinks. lol.

Hopefully they release ones with larger capacities or just leave them empty and let end users throw their own in.
 

jamesedgeuk2000

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2009
173
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Zeppelingcdm[/nom]Read an article in Popular Mechanics where they tested Thunderbolt against USB 2.0 and 3.0. To sum it up Apple has hyped the Thunderbolt way past real world speeds. Basically their blowing smoke up our asses once again. Thunderbolt came in above USB 2.0 but just barely passed USB 3.0 by 2.2 seconds. Add in the extra cost of having thunderbolt and the value is not really there. (The transfers were done to and from an SSD equipped Macbook Air for those who might be wondering.) Thought I'd share[/citation]

Thunderbolt is theoretically 2x as fast as USB 3.0, (its more like 2.2x in real world due to USB overheads) if your using a HDD with 90MB/s transfer speeds it wont make a difference, if your using a RAID array like being discussed here then TB is a big advantage over USB 3.0 bottlenecks.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I read that Popular Mechanics article about thunderbolt, i was surprise that Firewire 800 transferred the same amount of time as USB 2.0. But then again, i have an iBook G4 with Firewire 400 that takes twice the time than USB 2.0 backing up, so i shouldn't be too surprised. Then again, i should be optimistic with tunderbolt, because it was created by intel not apple (apple created Firewire).
 

Zeppelingcdm

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
21
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]Thunderbolt is theoretically 2x as fast as USB 3.0, (its more like 2.2x in real world due to USB overheads) if your using a HDD with 90MB/s transfer speeds it wont make a difference, if your using a RAID array like being discussed here then TB is a big advantage over USB 3.0 bottlenecks.[/citation]

Do you mean to say USB "2.0" Because if not your response doesn't make much sense. The article I read put TB head to head with USB 2 & 3.0. TB only finished transferring the file 2.2 seconds faster than USB 3.0. That is nowhere near 2.2x or even 2x faster than USB 3.0. This was a actual speed test done by transferring files to an SSD Macbook, so forget theoretical speeds. The whole point of my first post was to make it understood that Apple's "theoretical" TB speed predictions are way off mark. Take into account the extra money you have to spend to buy the TB cable and the extra speed doesn't really seem like increased value. As for the RAID array, that's a moot point seeing ass if you did the same thing in a USB 3.0 array you would remove the bottlenecks and still not have to spend extra money on proprietary equipment. So yes a RAID TB set up would beat the hell out of a single USB 3.0 drive, but it would only marginally exceed the same RAID USB 3.0 set up. Not trying to be a dick, it's just that unless you meant 2.0 instead of "3.0", your post makes little sense.
 

wopr11

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2011
69
0
18,630
0
Are you kiddin me? Apple invented Fire wire, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, Transformers and Thor, and they never blow any smoke up anybody's posterior orifice (they just stick it to them and they love it).
 
G

Guest

Guest
OK - this may be a moot argument... So, TB is *slightly* faster RW than USB 3.0... Future FW was sacrificed by Apple for this new standard. Anyone know right off how this even compares to FW 800?
 

halcyon

Splendid
Dec 4, 2004
5,566
0
25,810
40
[citation][nom]unixglobalrevolt[/nom]OK - this may be a moot argument... So, TB is *slightly* faster RW than USB 3.0... Future FW was sacrificed by Apple for this new standard. Anyone know right off how this even compares to FW 800?[/citation]

TB lays waste to FW800. I wish they'd release some 2.5" TB enclosures that I could find out my local retailer.
 

fortherecord

Honorable
Mar 12, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
Popular Mechanics tested one drive connected via thunderbolt and usb. Both interfaces are faster than the drive so they both repaired the same result. Compare that with a four drive raid like the one from Promise, and usb 3 tops out < 200 MB/s while thunderbolt reaches >700 MB/s.
 

fortherecord

Honorable
Mar 12, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
Popular Mechanics tested one drive connected via thunderbolt and usb. Both interfaces are faster than the drive so they both repaired the same result. Compare that with a four drive raid like the one from Promise, and usb 3 tops out < 200 MB/s while thunderbolt reaches >700 MB/s.
 

fortherecord

Honorable
Mar 12, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
Popular Mechanics tested one drive connected via thunderbolt and usb. Both interfaces are faster than the drive so they both repaired the same result. Compare that with a four drive raid like the one from Promise, and usb 3 tops out < 200 MB/s while thunderbolt reaches >700 MB/s.
 

jamesedgeuk2000

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2009
173
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Zeppelingcdm[/nom]Do you mean to say USB "2.0" Because if not your response doesn't make much sense. The article I read put TB head to head with USB 2 & 3.0. TB only finished transferring the file 2.2 seconds faster than USB 3.0. That is nowhere near 2.2x or even 2x faster than USB 3.0. This was a actual speed test done by transferring files to an SSD Macbook, so forget theoretical speeds. The whole point of my first post was to make it understood that Apple's "theoretical" TB speed predictions are way off mark. Take into account the extra money you have to spend to buy the TB cable and the extra speed doesn't really seem like increased value. As for the RAID array, that's a moot point seeing ass if you did the same thing in a USB 3.0 array you would remove the bottlenecks and still not have to spend extra money on proprietary equipment. So yes a RAID TB set up would beat the hell out of a single USB 3.0 drive, but it would only marginally exceed the same RAID USB 3.0 set up. Not trying to be a dick, it's just that unless you meant 2.0 instead of "3.0", your post makes little sense.[/citation]

No I did not mean USB 2.0 I meant 3.0, in the test you mentioned the speeds were the same because both of them were a lot faster than the drive being tested. In a RAID environment its entirely possible that 4 drives could surpass the bandwidth of USB 3.0 (625MB/s theoretical,
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,076
20
19,285
0
[citation][nom]Zeppelingcdm[/nom]Read an article in Popular Mechanics where they tested Thunderbolt against USB 2.0 and 3.0. To sum it up Apple has hyped the Thunderbolt way past real world speeds. Basically their blowing smoke up our asses once again. Thunderbolt came in above USB 2.0 but just barely passed USB 3.0 by 2.2 seconds. Add in the extra cost of having thunderbolt and the value is not really there. (The transfers were done to and from an SSD equipped Macbook Air for those who might be wondering.) Thought I'd share[/citation]

I am NOT paying $50 for a stupid cable. I'm sorry. I'll pay extra money for devices that have the electronics built in, but it's just idiotic to move expensive parts to a component that frequently breaks.
 

pocketdrummer

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
1,076
20
19,285
0
[citation][nom]jamesedgeuk2000[/nom]Thunderbolt is theoretically 2x as fast as USB 3.0, (its more like 2.2x in real world due to USB overheads) if your using a HDD with 90MB/s transfer speeds it wont make a difference, if your using a RAID array like being discussed here then TB is a big advantage over USB 3.0 bottlenecks.[/citation]

What about eSATA? The cables cost next to nothing and it's about as fast as plugging it into the motherboard directly.
 

halcyon

Splendid
Dec 4, 2004
5,566
0
25,810
40
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]What about eSATA? The cables cost next to nothing and it's about as fast as plugging it into the motherboard directly.[/citation]

Yes eSATA is quick too but it also requires external/additional power.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]wopr11[/nom]Are you kiddin me? Apple invented Fire wire, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, Transformers and Thor, and they never blow any smoke up anybody's posterior orifice (they just stick it to them and they love it).[/citation]

Apple did not invent USB ( mostly Intel, Microsoft, NEC, DEC and IBM) nor did they invent Thunderbolt (Intel).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY