A Review of the Top Four External Hard Drives 180
Lucas123 writes "There's a really good, detailed review at the Computerworld site on the top four external hard drives with more than 500GB of capacity. The story reveals some big flaws in the external drives, like malfunctioning one-touch backup buttons, USB 2.0 ports that don't recognize the drives, and drives coming out of the boxes unformatted. It's also an eye opener with regard to actual backup speeds. 'Broadband connections, peer-to-peer networks and larger media files coupled with new regulations that require diligence in backing up files have clearly affected the external hard drive market as drive capacities expand to 1TB and beyond. Meanwhile, the prices of those drives continue to drop, making them ever more attractive, particularly with the ease of deployment -- literally a two-minute installation, and you're ready to go. We put four of the leading external hard drives to the test. Our criteria were simple: The drives had to have multiple connection technologies (USB 2.0 plus FireWire 400 or FireWire 800 or both), include backup software and have a capacity of at least 500GB.'"
TFA: one page, less advertising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:TFA: one page, less advertising (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With the article only being on the first page, and the rest being links...
How do they expect anyone to navigate that site?
Why wasn't the LaCie rated higher? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why wasn't the LaCie rated higher? (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding the inoperable button, which is their main complaint about the drive, I'm surprised that they didn't contact Lacie support and report back... it's conceivable that it is a know issue or a bum unit. Then again, I'm rarely impressed by the reporting at Computerworld.
Valid reasons for not preformatting. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's Disk Utility offers six options to format a disk into: Mac OS Extended (HFS+), Mac OS Extended (HFS+) Journaled, Mac OS Extended (HFS+) Case-Sensitive, Mac OS Extended (HFS+) Case-Sensitive Journaled, MS-DOS File System (FAT32), UNIX File System (EXT2?).
I guess I would assume that a "high end" HW manufacturer like Lacie would pre-format the drives to Mac OS Extended Journaled, because that's what Apple recommends as a default these days, but particularly if it's a product that's being aimed at non-clueless users, they might have just decided it wasn't worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's actually very similar to FFS, the default filesystem of {Free,Net,Open}BSD. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] will tell you more.
LaCie support = good (Score:2, Informative)
I guess I would assume that a "high end" HW manufacturer like Lacie would pre-format the drives to Mac OS Extended Journaled, because that's what Apple recommends as a default these days...
Bingo. As a LaCie owner with both Mac & PC, they do default to PowerPC vanilla-HFS so any MacOS version can load it up. If the drive stops working properly in OSX their tech support will automatically give you a RMA and not a half hour of Windows tests to try. Their website and phone staff are pretty good too.. I've talked with both the U.S. and Canada guys.
Also, from experience, these are tough buggers. My Big Disk Extreme needed to have it's interface card replaced. The connection died on the PC
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... duh? They're all just different interfaces to the same controller of the same physical drive. It's not like it's a network controller with a network filesystem such as SMB or whatever, something that's made to take requests from multiple sources. If you want to use something like
Re: (Score:2)
The default formatting for Mac OS X is the journaled version of HFS+.
The arguments (which might not be persuasive in your case, but should at least be understandable) for case-insensitivity are largely based around the idea that from the user's perspective, there really should not be any difference between "README" and "readme" - allowing them to reference distinct files ca
Backwards compat. and performance. (Score:2)
Short answer: the Mac's filesystem was traditionally (like, forever, and the Apple II filesystem before it) case-insensitive. This led both users and software authors to make certain assumptions about file naming, and selecting/finding files. A lot of older Mac software would break if run on a case-sensitive filesystem. IIRC, some of the early versions of OS X even had problems if
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I always format them to NTFS or EXT3 or HFS+ To allow big files to be on them.
Not much point in a 100 GB+ drive that you can't put your DVD ISOs on IMHO.
I wonder if there will be a new universaly supported lowest common denominator like FAT32 by the time 8TiB drives come out though.
It is convienient to be able to write to your disks from every computer.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why wasn't the LaCie rated higher? (Score:4, Informative)
While FAT32 does have the advantage that just about anything can read/write to it, the 4GB file size limitation (which dates back to Seattle Computer Products' QDOS original FAT implementation) really limits its usefulness for large drives. SOP for me is to re-format FAT drives with the most appropriate file system: UFS for Solaris (fun part was figuring out that I needed to use svcadm to kill vold) or NTFS for Windows XP.
I wasn't impressed by the review either.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We use LaCie drives at my office and I can verify this. It's also not really a problem with only one specific model of theirs; we have problems with one of our original-release Porsche drives from them (this drive is now 100% dead, incidentally) and we have the same problem on the new 500GB drives we purchased in March.
I also personally don't think LaCie drives are all that reliable. In addition to the Porsc
Re: (Score:2)
For the average Slashdot reader, a minor compatibility issue might not be such a big deal as there is likely a workaround. But if you're pitching this "r
Re: (Score:2)
This is their OFFICIAL troubleshooting procedure too. All my coworkers that have the LaCies have the same problem. Some coworkers have a Western Digital that's half the capac
Why not just do it yourself? (Score:5, Insightful)
-It's cheaper to buy the two separately.
-You get to pick your drive case (color, features, etc.)
-You get to pick your drive (WD, Maxtor, Seagate).
-While OEM drives often come with more than a year warranty (SG is 5 years, I believe WD is three), regular external drives often come with a one year warranty.
While you do lose a few features (I'm dying for a good enclosure w/ one button backup), it's cheaper and you have more selection. Plus, the software that comes with external hard drives is such crap anyways (Seagate and BounceBack Crippled/Express Edition).
Of course, as a slashdotter, I may not be representative of the average computer user (OK, I'm not).
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not just do it yourself? (Score:4, Informative)
Not the best, but Explore2FS [chrysocome.net] is pretty nice.
Of course, writing a Windows File System is a black art. If MS documented it better, maybe there'd be more third party file systems.
You might want to look at this [fs-driver.org] as well -- disclaimer, I haven't tried it, don't know how good it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I have! Tried it on two different systems. It made both of them horribly unstable, with random lockups and even a nonrebooting bluescreen. Ended up removing it from both, and the problems went away.
Now, I just store my data on NTFS, and use ntfs-3g to access it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason is compatibility across platforms. The drive will be used to backup data from a Linux fileserver. So, I could have used a Linux filesystem on it. However, if the server dies, it should be possible to read the data back using a Windows machine. This leaves FAT32 as the only practical alternative.
I have already encountered one limitation of this approach: FAT32 only allows files
Re: (Score:2)
I've had more drives fail in external enclosures with cruddy power/controller issues than I even want to remember. While I haven't switched to premade external drives (instead I'm moving towards mini-file servers stuffed with drives), most of the ones I've bumped into at least give the impression of not being cheap plastic cases.
If I weren't drooling over the idea of having a rack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper than $135? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cheaper than $135? (Score:4, Informative)
So, if you managed to get a deal buying it for $20 less than the already low price at Newegg then good for you, but don't pretend that that's the common going rate for external hard drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why use a one button backup when it's pretty trivial to write a shell script that'll do an Rsync backup?
Thanks for the tip about buying the enclosure and the drive separately. I've been looking for a 250GB+ drive to do Rsyncs of my laptops to, and then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trivial to many slashdotters? Yes. Trivial to the average user? No.
Average user's response. What's a shell script? What the hell is rsync?
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they wouldn't even ask, and would think a shell script is the starting point of a new movie and Rsync is some new parody band.
Geek-Boy-Band: P-sync (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about the button or the software either.
Re: (Score:2)
Outsourcing Pain (Score:2)
The chief reason is that somebody has done the work for you to validate the case and bridge board. I've gone through several external drive enclosures from NewEgg before I found one that I like [newegg.com]. The others were too hot, had shit-for-bridgeboards (drives would drop off USB in the middle of a heavy transfer), didn't come with decent cables, et c., etc., etc. I finally found one model that does work well, and I'm running a bun
What the shit is this? (Score:2, Informative)
I get my 500gb hard drives from new egg. Was $179 last year, down to $159 now. Maxtor Onetouch 3. Reasonably quiet (can't hear it move than a few feet away), comes preformatted. Doesn't spin down after like 5m of inactivity. Only issue is that it has an huge, annoying blinking light even when idle. I cover that with a beer can.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, that's not going to work for me then, I use bear bottles, thus my setup is incompatible with this blinking light of which you speak. Oh well, you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Incompatibilities aside, I've got to ask: How the heck do you manage to bottle a bear?
Re:What the shit is this? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean... (Score:2, Informative)
Rule #1: Never pass up a pun (or should I say, "Rule number pun?").
*ducks*
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Maxtor is the $hit. (Score:2)
And although I've never done any performance testing on it, it's perfectly fast enough for its intended use on a PVR system, even configured as RAID1 (mirrored), and connected to its host iMac via FW400. I can simult
Re: (Score:2)
Article = trap. Save your money.
I get my 500gb hard drives from new egg. Was $179 last year, down to $159 now. Maxtor Onetouch 3. Reasonably quiet (can't hear it move than a few feet away), comes preformatted. Doesn't spin down after like 5m of inactivity. Only issue is that it has an huge, annoying blinking light even when idle. I cover that with a beer can.
I just bought an internal WD 500GB from newegg for $135 with a $10 rebate = $125
:-)
Of course, I bought two and made a RAID0 array = almost 1TB
Not everyone needs 500GB (Score:2)
Granted, my low tech solution of turning on the drive, copying files onto it, and then turning the drive off isn't as whiz-bangy as getting backup software -- but, I've been copying tar files to
Re: (Score:2)
You just reminded me of Sally Field in that Boniva [boniva.com] commercial. Quoth Sally:
Your so
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not being an American, I don't have to worry then, do I? ;-)
... a one button backup isn't really that critical.
Don't get me wrong, I can see why there would be a demand for this -- most people won't know how to do their own backups.
I'm just saying, if you're even remotely computer savvy
However, I think you might be the first
Re:Not everyone needs 500GB - NearLine? (Score:2)
What do you mean, near-line. USB speeds compare favorably with other consumer harddrive connection protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm .... near-line means available, but not necessarily mounted and live all of the time. My USB drives aren't always on, but they can be when I need them. Think of it as a tape library, but different. I can have an unlimited amount of un-mounted USB drives, any of which can be ready to be used within a few minutes of deciding I need it.
Some linky goodness
here [techtarget.com]
here [webopedia.com]
here [wikipedia.org]
Cheers
Meta: Another page view pumper (Score:1)
Go ahead and RTFA, but arm your adblockers first!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
In any case, maybe he is an employee or just a sad, sad man with no other URL to point to.
Western Digital Passport? My Book "Essential"? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA reviews the My Book Pro, but they also have a USB-only My Book "Essential" (read: Cheaper!) version; anyone tried those?
____________________________________
Dejobaan Games, LLC - Because we love developing games.
Indie Superstar - Because we love webcasting about indie games.
Re: (Score:2)
Although that might seem better, I would call that a showstoppingly critical design flaw.
USB allows for half a Watt for powered devices. A HDD spinning up can easily draw over 20W. Most USB controllers will handle quite a lot more than the spec'd 0.5W, but 40x more really pushes your luck. A good MB should just shut down that channel. A bad MB might simply cook.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that is 2.5 watts, not .5 watts (check the USB specs). And the devices he's talking about are built around 2.5 inch laptop drives. Of course you're technically right that powering ordinary drives via USB... but hey, the parent poster didn't suggest that (and I've never seen anyone else do that!).
Two plugs, too... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course you then have to figure out still if both ports aren't just on the same controller, etc. (or even if it is a powered port - though rare these days for them not to b) but typically any USB powered port is going to have its own rated 2.5W at disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
At the required 5 Volts, P=IxV gives you a maximum of 2.5 Watts of power.
Your point still stands though. Larger hard drives will always need an external power supply. Enclosures for 2.5" laptop drives often use two USB cables allowing for 1 Amp of current. The two 2.5" HDDs on my desk are rated at 0.7A and 1.0A respectively, so the latter would be pushing it without external power.
Re: WD Passports and Mac laptops (Score:3, Informative)
I sold my Powerbook G4 15" a while back though, and now use a Macbook Pro, which works with the WD Passport without proble
Re: (Score:2)
Review flaws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Buffalo LinkStation NAS has a USB port for daisy-chaining, but I haven't used it yet. The Buffalo LinkStation NAS is physically kind of large, but it comes in a 750GB cap
Re: (Score:2)
Get a cheapo 1GHz box with 3 contiguous 5 1/4 bays, 5 SATA drives, a SATA controller, and put up a Linux box, software RAID it, which can expand RAID 5 arrays (few hardware RAID can), LVM on top of that. This gives you everything you want and is about as cheap as you can possibly do what you're looking for. Share files with NFS & Samba.
http://www.addonics.com/products/raid_system/ae4rc s35nsa.asp [addonics.com]
I hope branding counts (Score:2)
Stupid Review Standards (Score:1)
No G-tech ? (Score:1, Informative)
Multiple Drive USB Enclosure (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't an 12 drive enclosure with powersupply, PIII motherboard with nothing but IDE/SATA and Gb-ethernet running Linux/RAID cost under $200?
Re: (Score:2)
The extra expenses, including the drives' burn rate, make it even more worthwhile to save mon
Firewire still beat out USB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Firewire still beat out USB (Score:5, Insightful)
For Mac OS X, there's Windows.
For Firefire, there's USB.
For PostgreSQL, there's MySQL.
For Ruby|Python, there's Perl.
For Rails|Java, there's PHP.
And so on.
Re: (Score:2)
For PS3, there's the Wii.
(flamesuit on)
speed & CPAN (Score:2)
Wake me up when there's a big library like CPAN and they're really fast. Seriously, I like Ruby a lot as a language, I just can't hack things together as quickly in it as Perl. If the Perl 6 VM lets us mix & match modules across languages, so much the better.
I've argued before that somebody needs to write a Python to Common LISP compiler so we can take advantage of some really fast LISP runtimes (it's been shown by others that Python is a dialect of LISP.
I like most of th
Re: (Score:2)
The new YARV VM in the next major release of Ruby doubles its speed, putting it on a par with Perl, at least for the kind of code I write.
It's true that there's no CPAN, and RubyForge doesn't really compare... but I find that I can write Ruby much more quickly than Perl, because the syntax doesn't get in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Firewire is superior because (a) it doesn't chew up your CPU cycles doing disk transfers, (b) it has the option of being able to provide guaranteed bandwidth to particular devices. The latter is why Firewire still dominates in video.
If you think it's stupid that you had to pay more to get proper Firewire on your computer, don't buy from that manufacturer again. My homebuilt PC came with proper Firewire on the motherboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no shit, sherlock! in other news, CDs are still beating every aspect of floppies.
did you really expect USB to beat firewire? how? why? wtf?
USB 2.0, of course, has a higher theoretical top bandwidth than Firewire 400. When USB 2 first came out, benchmarks showed that it was slower than Firewire; I attributed USB's inferior performance to its newness and immaturity of the disk controllers, just like early Firewire disks were hampered by their disk controllers, which were merely ATA bridges. Although I'm not an expert in this stuff, I figured that USB 2 would eventually surpass Firewire 400 as the disk controllers matured. It looks like that
Re: (Score:2)
USB 2.0, of course, has a higher theoretical top bandwidth than Firewire 400.
USB 2.0 has one transmission line capable of 480 Mbps, and can be used in either direction (half duplex). Firewire 400 has two transmission lines of 400 Mbps, one for each direction. So to begin with, Firewire has higher total capacity.
USB 2.0 might be able to achieve short burst of over 400 Mbps in one direction, but I'm not sure how much that counts in the overall scheme. You need two-way communication for either reading or writing data, and there's probably some overhead in switching between the tw
Re: (Score:2)
USB 2.0, of course, has a higher theoretical top bandwidth than Firewire 400. When USB 2 first came out, benchmarks showed that it was slower than Firewire; I attributed USB's inferior performance to its newness and immaturity of the disk controllers... I figured that USB 2 would eventually surpass Firewire 400 as the disk controllers matured. It looks like that hasn't come to pass, and probably never will at this point.
USB 2.0 apparently has surpassed FireWire 400 in write performance [anandtech.com], but peformance varies depending on the controller hardware/drivers (like you said). It still seems to lag behind in read performance, but which is more important for external hard drives? Another comparison here [techreport.com].
The latest Intel and NVIDIA chipsets (with USB 2.0 built into the chipsets) seem to peform well in Windows XP.
What about power use and noise ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, endless details on speed, and next to nothing about noise levels, power usage, and whether they have the ability to spin down when not in use.
FreeNAS (Score:3, Insightful)
External Mac drive issue (Score:2)
Speed Issues? (Score:2)
And, as other posters have noted, it's almost always better to buy a drive and an enclosure from a place like Newegg and combine them yourself. I unde
Beware of connected storage devices... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, even if you've verified the data is good on your storage device, moving it to another machine and connecting it up may leave you unhappy if the storage interface on the new machine isn't working properly.
You have been warned.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had 2 Maxtor external firewire drives die on me -the second containing several years of Digital recordings of various bands I was in.
It started having trouble copying large files and would sometimes 'dissappear' from the desktop or fail to mount and finally, even though the access lights would come on and the drive would spin up, nothing.....
That one was an ATA drive in a firewire enclosure and in preparation to sending it somewhere to have disk recovery performed on it I decided to connect it d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact most video editiors using a MAC will have a stack of firewire drives sitting there for video.
There is a reason you never see a video editor use usb drives.
Re: (Score:2)
cp -v obviously doesn't do it, but something like that really should.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When you write to a medium that may fail sometimes in the future, you never want to use compression. There is a good reason for that (and I learnt it the hard way). If you write some gigabytes of data using tar to the medium, and some sectors of it afterwards get damaged.... if you did not use compression, then tar will complain a lot and try to resync and in the end you should only lose some fil
Screw USB/Firewire, go e-SATA2 (Score:2)
SATA isn't as fast as you'd think... (Score:2)
That 3Gb/s figure the manufacturers all tout is bullshit.
Heat. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most of them are user-changeable anyway, if you can work out how to crack the box.
I have a Maxtor USB/firewire drive that I've had for >3 years, and the drive is dying. So I'm just going to buy a new big IDE HDD and stick it in the enclosure. They're all just IDE drives inside, after all.
There's also the fact that you can buy external USB drives in stores, but generally not an enclosure on its own, which may be a factor.