FW800 to eSATA - performance jump likely to be worthwhile?

Hi there.
I currently use two external drives with my MBP and have just got back into using FCP for video editing. I've always used both drives with their respective FW800 ports although one of the drives (a WD MyBook Studio II) has an eSATA port that I've never utilised.
I'm wondering whether it's worth my while buying an Expresscard/34 eSATA adaptor to enable me to use the WD drive with eSATA but would like to know if I'm likely to see a decent jump in performance: if the increase is marginal I'd stick with FW800.
TIA.

Be extremely careful with expresscard adapters and MacBook Pros. I have a MacBook Pro 2007 and three different eSATA expresscard adapters:
OWC Slim ExpressCard to eSATA Adapter. T
APIOTEK EXTREME Dual eSATA SATA I/II Express Card 34 Adapter with the latest Silicon Image 3132 Drivers
OWC ExpressCard/34 eSATA SATA I/II ExpressCard/34 Adapter
None of these work on my MacBook Pro 2009. The card is recognized, the hard drive mounts, and reads from it. However after writing for 5-10 minutes. The hard drive is corrupted and I have te re-nitialize the hard drive.
Exact same Mac OS 10.6.7, same card and three different hard drives enclosures (OWC RAID and non-RAID, and Hitachi): No problem on my MacBook Pro 2007. The performance boost is incredible and really worth it, if it was reliable on your MacBook Pro. Make sure you extensively test. I lost a lot of data thinking this was going to work fine.
There are many notes in xlr8yourmac about hard drive file corruption.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/OSXeSATA_PMreports.html
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/express34cardreports.html#storytop
There are also several notes on macintouch
I have talked with Apple and they are unaware of these issues.
So be very careful when using expresscard adapters and depend them to be reliable with hard drives. I have given up and use Firewire 800. Unfortunately, Apple has not taken the time to debug this and admit they have a problem.

Similar Messages

  • After installing Mountain Lion on my 17" MBP G-RAID mini connected via Tempo SATA Edge ExpressCard34 is no longer recognized. I restored icon and access by removing 34 card and substituting FW800 for eSATA. Any fix for the higher speed connection? TIA

    After installing Mountain Lion on my 17" MBP G-RAID mini connected via Tempo SATA Edge ExpressCard34 is no longer recognized. I restored icon and access by removing 34 card and substituting FW800 for eSATA. Any fix for the higher speed connection? TIA

    Looks like the Silicon Image drivers were moved to the incompatible software folder during install/upgrade.
    Downloaded latest drivers, errored out of install claiming that the drivers were from an unknown author!!!
    Emailed their tech support this evening describing problem.

  • Recommend An External Drive (FW800 or eSATA)?

    Hi everyone
    I wanted to see if people had any recommendations for external drives... I'd like to get one with FW800 - eSATA would be a bonus to future-proof myself but not necessary...
    So far, I've tried the NewerTech miniStack v3 and am rather disappointed with it... its fan comes on on frequently, even if I'm not accessing the drive...
    So far, I've seen the Seagate FreeAgent for Mac and the WD MyBook... what about GTech's products?
    Thanks!

    If you are going to utilize the ODD sata ports, then yes the newertech esata adapter + mercury elite dual drive esata only.
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MESATATBEK/
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/MPQXES2/
    Make sure you get the right dual-drive esata only one. OWC updated it, as it used to be all black. There's a usb one that can be confusing.
    As for WD drives, right now they are on top of their game. Giving best speed, quietness, cooling, AND cheap. WD Blacks are the best all around everything.
    They are fast (gives Velociraptors decent competition imo), 32mb cache, very quiet, run cool, 5 year warrranty, and most of all dirt cheap. $69 for 640GB and $99 for a high performance 1TB.
    I used to like Hitachi's enterprise class long time ago for raids, but I think they have just started to fall off.
    The reviews from newegg of WD Black pretty much say it all:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136284

  • FW800 v eSATA & External Hard Drive set-up questions

    Hi there: I've loosely got 2 questions to the wise here...
    I recently acquired a new MacBook Pro 17" and have extended my collection of external drives. I have:
    - 300GB Lacie (connected via FW800) after years of service, now semi-retired used solely as a clone of the system drive
    - 1TB Seagate Freeagent (via FW800) currently used as 2/3 Timemachine and 1/3 general non-important storage
    - 2TB WD MyBook Studio II (via FW800) to be used as a FCP scratch disc.
    I've only had the Seagate for a day and it's behaving ok but seems quite warm to the touch, whilst the WD (arrived today) seems to run much cooler.
    I have thought of changing things so that:
    - 1TB Seagate becomes the scratch drive
    - 2TB WD becomes 3 partitions: 1/ small amount of storage 2/ timemachine backup and 3/ a scratch disc backup
    My logic being that (a) the Seagate will be in use less and (b) that I will be able to back-up capture/scratch stuff. There are two possible downsides to this:
    - That I will effectively half my capacity for scratch, although at 2TB I might have over-estimated my need in any case.
    - I give up my potential for eSata for the scratch disc.
    So as well as general advice about my set-up (or proposed set-up) I'm asking whether eSata would be sufficiently faster to justify purchase of an Express/34 card and restricting myself to only using the WD for scratch.
    Now give yourself a medal for reading through all this!
    Message was edited by: Norliss

    Your need for both space and for speed is determined by what codec you're working with, how much of it, and to what complexity. I'd start here to estimate how much space you need:
    http://www.videospaceonline.com/
    And if you like, you can use my Digital Acquisition Codecs chart to find your codec bitrate:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0f3cee79d16c357cd5a101cf914073b415dd66068b14f 2a8
    eSATA is definitely faster than FW800, but whether you really need that extra boost is something for you to decide. And remember, you can always daisy-chain your backup drive (or connect it via FW400 or even USB-- it's just backup after all), allowing it to backup your scratch files even if they're on another disk.

  • 890GXM-G65 eSata Performance

    I am testing a SSD (A-Data, SandForce Controller, > 260Mbytes/s read/write).  I am using the e-sata connection with a dock.  I am only getting 120Mbytes/s and wondering why.  Any suggestions?  Do I need to install the latest AMD drivers for the SB850.  I looked at AMD's website and MSI but I am a little confused on how to install SATA controller divers.  I am using an internal OCZ Vertex (Indilinx Controller) and getting over 200Mbytes easily.  Any suggestions?
    Windows7 Home Premium
    2G byte Memory
    AMD Phenom II X4 810
    OCZ vertex (30Gbyte SSD)
    KJ

    Sorry, but AMD will probably not release that cpu for normal sale.
    read here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3721/news-just-in-no-phenom-ii-x4-960t-for-general-release
    http://www.neoseeker.com/news/13858-amd-phenom-x4-960t-retail-launch-cancelled/
    They are too concerned that every one wants one to unlock it, so for now its a no no for normal sale to you and me, unless you might get lucky and get your hands on it through other channels.
    Its only selling them to OEM's and they are to have boards that dont have unlock capabilities for the cpu.
    And there is this:
    Quote
    At the end of the day, this is a less reliable mechanism for generating additional performance  than traditional overclocking. It’s very hit and miss, and the gains only apply to threaded applications and workloads. I'll admit that finding a chip that unlocks feels a lot like buying a Lottery Scratcher and winning twenty bucks. Just be ready to lose more times than you win.
    from here:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x4-960t-zosma-core-unlocking,2627.html
    So your your chances are way better when buying a real sixcore.
    No offense but if you want a working hexacore, buy one, the cores are mostly locked for a reason and in 90% of the time you'll run into all kind of problems and glitches.
    Besides they are not as expensive as an Intel hexacore, they are way cheaper, so safe some more, before jumping on the "unlocking" wagon and find out that its flawed (if you can get one that is).

  • Will iMac 27" Quad improve Aperture performance?

    Hello:
    I currently own a 24” iMac 3.06 core 2 duo with 4gb memory. Aperture is still slow, sometimes very slow, in making multiple adjustments.
    I was thinking of upgrading to one of the new 27” quad core machines (i7 8gb ram). Is there any hope that this machine will run aperture noticeably better or will I be wasting my $?
    Thanks,
    Jeff Stulin

    the benchmarks show the i7 to be up to 3x faster (geekbench) then your imac....but ps cs4 is only 10-20% faster....all software that fully utilized the i7 chip will fly on that machine....
    the problem with the imacs is the storage bottleneck.....fw800 becomes a problem when you are working with a cpu and gpu that wants to and can push data around like the i7....so in theory, final cut would be amazing on this...but there is no way to get uncompressed video in or out!
    great to have a superfast cpu to work with but files take forever to open up because there is no adequate way to transfer the data.....
    i just got a SSD for my mbp and aperture flies all of a sudden.....the (referenced) library (all files on a external sata raid via expresscard slot) opens up instantly, adjustments are smooth...this is the biggest performance jump i have ever seen in a computer, and all i did was change the HD and add the sata....ps is not really faster (although open/save and scratch are much faster)...going to fw 800 feels like working on usb all of a sudden.....
    the internal HDs in the new imacs have some kind of heat sensor, so swapping drives can't be done and it is really hard anyway....unlike a mbp, there is only one internal drive anyway (the optical cannot be swapped) and obviously sata is totally out.....
    in short, as much as i **** for the new imacs and especially the i7, it just isn't a workhorse replacement.....and when the mbp comes with the i5 or i7 and cs5 can take advantage of the chips they will be the much better option....
    you have a nice large screen and a fast cpu now.....aperture will be faster on a i7, but there are many other aspects to consider all of which involve data transfer and none of the imacs can improve your situation in that regard......

  • ESATA Card for 1.8GHz Single CPU (Late 2004) Power Mac G5 Tower

    I have an unusual issue. I purchased the LaCie d2 quadra 500GB external hard drive. What attracted me to this drive is the ability to interface it by USB 2.0, Firewire 400, Firewire 800 or eSATA. Of course, eSATA looks like it would provide the best throughput. So, I asked the rep at MacMall to suggest a compatible eSATA card for my machine. He suggested LaCie part number 710372 which is a PCI card with two eSATA ports on it.
    When it arrived, I checked the specs on the package and found that it requires a "PCI slot (32 bits 66Mhz; PCI 2.3 compliant interface)". When I checked Apple's web site it looks like my machine has the following caution "Warning: Do not use PCI cards that function only at 66 MHz in the 33 Mhz PCI slots. Damage to your equipment could result...". So, I called LaCie support to check this before I installed the card. LaCie support checked with their technicians and I was finally told that this card did have the ability to operate at 33 Mhz but it wasn't listed on the package.
    So, I installed the card and then brought my machine up. It seemed to run normally. So, I attached the eSATA cable to the hard drive and then to one of the ports on the card. So far, so good. Then, I powered the drive up and it appeared on the desktop. I then fired up Disk Utility and erased the drive. That worked fine. Next, I tried to copy files to it and that worked.
    As a matter of course, I always like to erase a new drive with the "write zeros to all sectors". This verifies that every sector on the drive can be written to without any problems. I don't know if this really accomplishes anything. But, it would seem to validate that the drive works fine.
    So, I started this process knowing that it would take a long time for a drive this large (500 GB). This seemed to proceed normally as I checked it from time to time. But, after a number of hours (with only 13 minutes remaining), the entire system hung. I could not do anything except press the button on the front of the machine.
    After the machine came back up, it seemed to run normally. But, as I started running applications, I could tell all was not well. The system hung from time to time. Each time, it took 10 or 15 minutes to become responsive.
    Finally, I got disgusted and powered everything down and removed the suspect PCI card. Since I did that, the machine works fine.
    The drive is now connected using the Firewire 800 cable and seems to work fine. But, it doesn't seem especially fast. I have other drives attached using Firewire 400. Is it possible to have drives attached to both Firewire busses and still get the performance advertised by Firewire 800?
    Also, is there an eSATA card that will work in my machine and still provide the advertised eSATA performance (1.5Gbits per second/150MB/second)?
    With the drive connected to the Firewire 800 port, it honestly doesn't seem any faster than any of the other Firewire 400 drives.

    I didn't say what to do, only options and tried to point out WHY.
    This is what I know, these are possible explanations. And alternatives.
    most PCI cards are NOT a fixed 66MHz, very very small market. And most PCI slots are not 66MHz only. The Blue G3 and Xserve have used 66MHz PCI.
    Your card should work. eSATA is slightly better than FW800. But you are going through a 'bridge' between the drive and the PCI card, usually Oxford 924 chipset.
    A direct SATA case for $68 would let you use two drives and get the 75MB/sec writing speed, which is about as much as you can expect from most SATA drives and in G5 anyway.
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MESATATBEK/
    And here is a nice 500GB drive for $99
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Maxtor/7H500F0/
    Connect it to one of the eSATA ports on your LaCie SATA PCI card.
    And yes, you have the single drive now.
    When installing cards and drives, reset-nvram - either zap the pram from cold startup or boot into Open Firmware and type the reset-nvram and reset-all from there.
    I know lots of people use and are happy with LaCie and D2. I am not one of them (I use to buy LaCie when it was Quantum back in early 90s).

  • 2010 MBP 15" i7 - best performance upgrade?

    Recently replaced my Mac Pro with a MBP. I find the MBP a bit sluggish in comparison, which I suspect is down to the disk subsystem (500Gb 5400 rpm vs 2x500Gb 7200rpm in RAID-0 config) rather than CPU (dual core 2.66Ghz i& vs. 2x dual core 2.66Ghz Xeon) or RAM (Both 4Gb).
    Looking for a performance boost and considering either:
    750Gb 7200 RPM driver upgrade
    500Gb Seagate Momentus (500gb + 4Gb SSD) drive upgrade
    Upgrade to 8Gb RAM from 4Gb.
    Only want to do 1 at the moment, so not RAM and drive upgrades.
    Primary reason for performance boost is with Aperture. any experience as to which would provide the most immediate benefit?
    Steve

    If your performance boost is targeted for Aperture, simply get a 7200rpm external, and only use it for your Aperture library (and another for backing it up). Get a size of drive large enough to handle your library, with some room to grow of course. Fragmentation is probably your biggest issue, and this will give you a HUGE improvement in your Aperture work. Don't use your library on your boot drive.
    Your RAM is more than sufficient, as I'm running an older MBP 17" with 2GB RAM (with eSATA external) and am having no speed issues at all. My current F2 eSATA is dual 5400rpm drives (until upgrade to 7200rpm, one step at a time).
    The key for your speed issue, library ONLY on the external. Don't use it for any other file storage of any type. Any other use will fragment the library and slow you down considerably. While 7200rpm is faster than 5400 (duh), it's not like you're streaming video either, you're working on photos.
    Do what you can afford, and fortunately your fix is rather cheap these days.
    The other consideration for your external is what type: eSATA best, FW800 with only one device on the chain, USB last. Once my library was on its own external drive, that's when I noticed the biggest speed boost. Going from FW800 to eSATA was another bump up, while noticeable it wasn't as much as simply putting the library on its own drive.
    Hope this helps.

  • Stuttered performance

    Hi. I just got a new Mac Pro 2.66 with a gig of ram, and I've noticed that a lot of applications seem to stutter (just take their time, or the mouse pointer turns into the revolving rainbow ball for a while) a lot. Offending applications include Final Cut Pro (5.1.1), Comic Life (1.2.6), and Photoshop CS2 (running in Rosetta, obviously). What's going on? Do I need more RAM? Do I need to change some settings?

    It turns out I had to turn off the option to "turn
    off hard drives when possible" and this made
    performance jump a lot. I will go with the advice of
    getting some more RAM as well. Thanks to everyone
    for their comments!
    I was just thinking about the "Put the hard disk(s) to sleep when possible" option (under Energy Saver) as a possibility as well. I turned that off and my system also seems more responsive. And - fingers crossed - I'm hoping it stops the "black screen" problem I posted about under the Display category.
    I also got Boot Camp working
    Bryan

  • LineChart Performance with createSymbols on

    I am using JavaFX 2.2 and creating a LineChart with lots of data points (8 series with 20K points each for a total of 60K data points). This works quite nicely if I setCreateSymbols(false). If I turn symbols on so that I can see the markers, it becomes unbearably slow. It appears that each symbol is represented by a Node which gives lots of flexibility and power, but upon profiling I see that I'm spending tons of time in the layout algorithms within JavaFX. Not too surprising considering the number of children nodes it's dealing with.
    Is there a way to have the LineChart just draw the markers as a path (as it does for the line itself) rather than create 10s of thousands of Nodes? Has anyone done this themselves? That is, leave setCreateSymbols(false) but draw markers on top of the chart?
    Any tips or tricks to get the symbols without the performance hit would be greatly appreciated.
    ---- Update ---
    After finding the OpenJDK source code for LineChart, it seemed fairly straightforward to accomplish what I wanted. I tried a simple experiment by creating my own subclass of LineChart with one overridden method: layoutPlotChildren. It seems to be the only place where the path line associated with each series is created. As an experiment I had my overriden method start by calling super.layoutPlotChildren(). then, for each series in the line chart, it enumerated the data points an added a small box around it. See code below. The result displays correctly but runs even more slowly than the version with Nodes for each symbol. Based on Profiler output, all the time is spent in the rendering engine's ScanlineIterator.
        @Override protected void layoutPlotChildren() {
            super.layoutPlotChildren();
            for (int seriesIndex=0; seriesIndex < getData().size(); seriesIndex++) {
                Series<X,Y> series = getData().get(seriesIndex);
                if(series.getNode() instanceof  Path) {
                    Path seriesLine = (Path)series.getNode();
                    for (Data<X,Y> item : series.getData()) {
                        double x = getXAxis().getDisplayPosition(item.getXValue());
                        double y = getYAxis().getDisplayPosition(
                                getYAxis().toRealValue(getYAxis().toNumericValue(item.getYValue())));
                        ObservableList<PathElement> pathElements = seriesLine.getElements();
                        pathElements.add(new MoveTo(x-1, y-1));
                        pathElements.add(new LineTo(x+1, y-1));
                        pathElements.add(new LineTo(x+1, y+1));
                        pathElements.add(new LineTo(x-1, y+1));
                        pathElements.add(new LineTo(x-1, y-1));

    Hi David,
    I would not expect you to see much change in overall performance. Likely start up will be a touch longer, but if you leave Aperture loaded then that will be a non-issue. Theoretically you should have some performance degradation, but much of Aperture's latency appears due to graphics capability, lack of RAM and much less to disk I/O.
    That said, I'm assuming the two drives are the same speed. If the primary drive is slower that could result in some (potentially minor) difference.
    If your library is not too large, and you are not using referenced, then merely copying the library across (or even export/import a project into a new empty library) will verify.
    G.

  • Java SQL performance

    I am running 10,000 commands on a high volume database.
    I have stopped the Java.lang.OutOfMemoryError by assigning more virtual memory.
    But just another question which I've never thought of before....
    Which is better for running a java program, a network drive or a hard drive?
    Or does this not matter at all?
    Thanks in advance.

    Disk speed had little or nothing to do with Java speed.
    The performance is likely to be caused be
    a) inefficient use of database calls / access
    b) poor memory management
    You'd need to give more information on what you're doing.
    Eg. are you making 10,000 SQL select statements ? Or SQL insert statements ?
    Are you trying to read all those results into memory, or use a scrollable resultset.
    More information required.
    regards,
    Owen

  • Performance with library on OS drive?

    Right now I have my Aperture library on a second internal drive, but my main drive with the operating system has gobs of unused space and I'm thinking of transferring the library to the boot drive. Would that do anything to the performance of Aperture? I think it barely runs well enough the way it is now, but it would be nice to free up that other drive for photos...
    thanks

    Hi David,
    I would not expect you to see much change in overall performance. Likely start up will be a touch longer, but if you leave Aperture loaded then that will be a non-issue. Theoretically you should have some performance degradation, but much of Aperture's latency appears due to graphics capability, lack of RAM and much less to disk I/O.
    That said, I'm assuming the two drives are the same speed. If the primary drive is slower that could result in some (potentially minor) difference.
    If your library is not too large, and you are not using referenced, then merely copying the library across (or even export/import a project into a new empty library) will verify.
    G.

  • ESATA and the iMac G5

    I'm considering an additional second external hardrive. (A backup clone to my first external HD).
    I've been reading a lot about a very quick connection called "eSATA" which some of the external HD manufacturers offer. (For example some offer a combo USB2/eSATA approach).
    Can anyone let me know if the iMac G5 can connect to eSATA?
    Is it possible? Is it a simple cable swap-out? etc etc
    Thank you in advance.
    RichF
    iMac G5 20"/iSight   Mac OS X (10.4.9)  

    No Rich,
    There is no eSata port on the iMac G5, and therefore no way of connecting it.
    Firewire 400 remains by far the best means of connecting an external drive to your iMac G5. You'll find it is much faster than USB2 in "real world" usage, and it is also the only way that you can use an external hard drive as a "boot" disk with these computers.
    By all means get a combined FW400/FW800/USB2/eSata enclosure, if you wish, but you won't get any additional speed benefit from the extra cost of doing so as the FW 400 will be the only one it is really worth using. (The only advantage is possible future compatibility when you upgrade your computer next time and greater interconnectivity options if you intend to connect the drive to other computers with the relevant ports).
    Cheers
    Rod

  • N580GTX Poor Performance

    I recently bought a 580GTX Lightning and out of the box I was experiencing fairly poor performance especially in DX11 games and benchmarks. This was with the MSI OC clocks (832Mhz core etc). I down-clocked to standard 580 values and performance immediately increased to levels you would expect a 580 card to be capable of. Seemed at the time as if the GPU voltage was set too low...
    In playing around with the card, I flipped the BIOS dipp switch to the LN2 setting and found that the clock settings were at (by default) the standard 580GTX settings. Performance was in this case again poor despite the lower clocks. I then increased clocks to the MSI OC values and performance jumped again to where a 580GTX card should be. Odd.
    Next I flipped the Bios back to the original, restarted and left the OC at the MSI values. Performance remains at most excellent.
    At the moment it seems I get good performance when I am using Afterburner and have the "Apply Overclocking at System Startup" option applied.
    My question is why is this? Will this card only work correctly when used in conjunction with Afterburner? Any thoughts on why this is?
    GPU BIOS: 70.10.17.00.06
    PSU: Silverstone Strider Gold 750W
    Nvidia Drivers: 270.61
    OS: Windows 7 SP1

    Quote
    My question is why is this? Will this card only work correctly when used in conjunction with Afterburner? Any thoughts on why this is?
    AB is just a software tool that allows you to manipulate the clocks and voltages, easily. Nothing more.
    Quote
    At the moment it seems I get good performance when I am using Afterburner and have the "Apply Overclocking at System Startup" option applied.
    That setting will apply an Overclock that you manually set and then saved as a user profile within Afterburner. If you did not save a user profile, then it will be the same settings as what your card's factory clocks are. i.e. it will not apply anything.
    Quote
    I recently bought a 580GTX Lightning and out of the box I was experiencing fairly poor performance especially in DX11 games and benchmarks.
    Poor performance is relative. This needs to be quantified and a measuring standard is needed, as well as comparisons to the same or similar cards to establish a consistent baseline.

  • Expresscard FW800

    I'm trying to find an expresscard FW800 or esata adapter and I don't seem to be able to find any on the web anywhere.
    My new MacBook Pro will be arriving soon and I need one of these cards to handle video editing (HDV/HD etc).
    Can anyone help? Or point me in the right direction? I live in the UK.

    Here is a list of the cards I have found:
    Firewire 800:
    http://www.cooldrives.com/iefi800exsis.html
    eSATA:
    http://firmtek.stores.yahoo.net/seritek2sm2e.html
    here's a review/benchmark of the eSATA card:
    http://www.barefeats.com/hard71.html
    check out both and read reviews in the forums because I recall seeing some issues with both.

Maybe you are looking for