External hdd backup alternatives?

By ingeborgdot
Jan 25, 2009
  1. I decided to try out this new device called a NDAS (no not an NAS) but an NDAS. Network Direct Attached Storage. Anyway it says it is the fastest method of transferring data. I have tried a direct connection through a gig lan and it transferred 35GB of info in an 8 hour period. I then hooked up an external hdd through esata and it did 35GB in less than 5 minutes. Can anyone explain what is happening? Am I doing something wrong? Also, this hdd runs at 52 idle in this enclosure and 35 in others.
  2. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,689   +395

    Thats about 120megs per second.. What kind of drives are involved because thats pretty fast. Much faster than a normal non raid setup.
  3. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    I have the 1GB WD Black.
  4. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 9,153   +598

    Sounds like the second pass was a differential or incremental backup rather than a full backup

    suggest you wipe the external and then rerun making sure that both tests are
    FULL backups :)
  5. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,689   +395

    I thought something was screwy when it was that fast, thats why I asked about the drive.

    Jobeard may be onto something, because there is no way you can do a 35GB transfer to that disk in 5 minutes. This shows why.
  6. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    Whatever you want to think. It was done in 5 minutes. I did delete all and do it that way. The 5min download was fine. It was a good download.
  7. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,689   +395

    Lets look at the math a little bit:

    To do 35GB in that time it is 35840MB/5 Minutes. That gives you 7168MB/Min. Which is in turn 119.46MB/sec. You said less than 5 minutes so it needs to be even faster than that...

    Here is it benchmarking a burst speed of 111MB/Sec.
    Burst speeds are always faster than sustained.

    That drive is damn fast for a 7200rpm drive, but its not fast enough to do 35gigs in 5 minutes. TomsHardware benched the drive vs a lot of others, here is the page with the important results. The drive was a fair bit faster than I expected, with a Max of 106MB/sec, Ave of 85MB/sec, and a Min of 54MB/sec for Sequential Write (Read speed is similar). The next page of the review has a PCMark 05 bench of the Write speed, where it shows 95MB/sec.

    Not even the highest speed (burst) for that drive from 2 different sources is high enough, let alone the average speed which you'd be much closer to on a 5 minute transfer. If that was a 1 file 35GB transfer I could see it being close to the max for that drive, but like I said, the max for that drive is lower than the transfer speed you needed to achieve to do it in 5 minutes. Maybe you just read what Windows said was the time remaining initially and just believed that.

    With an average speed of 85Megs/sec you actually get closer than I expected. It would get the transfer done in just over 7 minutes. But for a backup you are probably dealing with a lot of small files which will cripple the speed.

    I've now linked 3 sources between 2 posts.

    I get that arguing about transfer speeds isn't solving your real question here. But I can't just stand by doing nothing when I see something that is not correct.
  8. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    Maybe I did see the clock wrong and it could have been more than 5 minutes and it could have been any where from 33-35GB, who the hell cares because that is not the point here. The one thing I found was that the esata was many times faster than the ethernet connection.
    I don't understand why you waste your time trying to prove someone is a little wrong with his figures when it does not matter.
  9. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 9,153   +598

    hum; sorry to have bothered you when you initiated the question. excuse me.
  10. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    That's not why I went off a little. You (which has since been edited) make a rude comment in your post. Not needed as my remark was probably not needed. I showed my character by my remarks but it would not have happened if you would not have said what you did.
  11. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 9,153   +598

    I thought you wanted an explanation of the extraordinary timings you observed.
    It appears you wish to argue -- I'm sorry I offered. henceforth unsubscribed from this thread.

    Peace to all men.
  12. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 434

    And I am glad you unsubscribed.
  13. mflynn

    mflynn TS Rookie Posts: 2,655

    Hi ingeborgdot

    I am not saying this to P you off.
    I really am not, as I read this thread I can see no offense from JO!

    I think you misunderstood and owe him an apology.

    He is one of the MOST nicest, polite an knowledgeable members on this board.

    That said I agree with you on the speed it is very likely as you said.

    Network Direct Attached Storage is new and somewhat misunderstood. It has its own processor and more or less pulls the data to itself while at the same time pumping up and using every resource of the Workstation and its HD that it is pulling from .

    It is very fast!

    For it to perform as you have said it needs a big pipe/path. Fast HD on computer SATA 3GB or greater>1g NIC >1g certified Cat6>1g Ethernet Switch finally to Network Direct Attached Storage. Alto still fast any weakness in the path will slow transfer to the speed of that device.

  14. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,689   +395

    Mike - I think you misread the thread. The NDAS is where it took 8 hours. The eSATA which is drive speed limited is where the whole debate came from, and as I showed, less than 5 minutes isn't possible. There is no way to get around the speed of the actual drive.
  15. mflynn

    mflynn TS Rookie Posts: 2,655

    Opps yeah I did!

    And looks like I can't cyper good either!

Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...