Thread: Just got RuggedXL 1TB Lacie drive so far so good

The E SATA speed on this drive is snappy. I have to say its just as good as an internally connected drive. Aluminum and rubber outer shell feels built like a tank. Slightly more pricey drive though at 150 but worth it for the ruggedness.

What are your average transfer speeds? I have three external hard drives that all connect via USB 2.0, although I am happy with their performance during transfers it would be helpful to have higher speeds.

Especially now that I grabbed a lot of HD material and have to move it to the externals from time to time.

never tried eSATA..how is it different from a USB connected HD?

I am curious which drive manufacturer you have inside. I have used multiple Lacie products in the past (both USB and eSATA) and the majority of them are built using Samsung drives. IMO, the reliability and the aftermarket customer service make them worth a few extra bucks. Good luck with yours...

Originally Posted by EvilLadies

never tried eSATA..how is it different from a USB connected HD?

faster read/write speeds

Obviously it has faster read/write speeds. Can anyone who owns an Esata external hard drive tell what are the average speeds? I am sure the system you have makes a difference, however I can't justify paying extra without getting a speeds that are truly worth the price.

By this I mean I average around 30mb/s with a USB 2.0 Seagate 1TB external drive.
I paid $85.99 for this drive. Right next to it when I purchased this drive was a 1TB (forgot the brand) ESATA drive for $149.99. Now granted I had the money at the time but without knowing any one who could verify read/write speeds I went with the cheaper USB 2.0 model.

Sure we can google this stuff but I'd rather hear from someone that can verify the speeds as for all I know those who test tech stuff may have a rig that is far superior to most.

The reason I wish to know is that it is not uncommon for me to transfer anywhere between 10-100GBs at a time. If this reduces my time by at least 25% then I would be more willing to purchase one.

This is from Tom's Hardware:

USB 2.0 has been available for many years and it’s not an exaggeration to say that this interface is available on each and every computer--whether we’re talking about desktop PCs, notebooks, or servers in the Windows world or on Apple systems. And although USB 2.0 is reliable, highly compatible, and easy to use, it does have a disadvantage that forced the industry to move on: USB 2.0 is limited to 480 Mb/s, which translates into 30-35 MB/s maximum bandwidth for typical storage applications. This is certainly more than enough for most device types and for casual storage use, but as soon as you want or need to move many gigabytes of data on a regular basis, you’ll want more throughput.

FireWire (or IEEE 1394) has been around for many years as well. The initial standard, FireWire 400, or 1394a, provides 400 Mb/s throughput and isochronous transfer, which is necessary for real-time transmission of data--something you would want for digital video, for example. FireWire 800, or 1394b, doubled the throughput to 800 Mb/s, but neither of the two FireWire specifications really became mainstream. Although FireWire is popular and widespread, it is not even remotely as prolific as USB.

Finally, we have eSATA, which stands for external Serial ATA (SATA). This is a modification of the SATA standard that most computers use to attach hard drives and optical drives, adjusted to support longer cables for external devices through modified electrical specifications. In addition, connectors are physically different to avoid mixing them up. The cable length of up to 2m is sufficient for storage applications, but both FireWire and USB still support longer cables that are 4.5m and 5m in length. However, eSATA is as fast as internal SATA, which translates into a maximum of 300 MB/s for 3 Gb/s SATA connections.

Future FireWire standards, such as 1394d, could reach 6.4 Gb/s, but these will probably not be very mainstream. USB 3.0 (also known as SuperSpeed USB) is specified at 4.8 Gb/s and has the potential of reaching effective throughput of up to 400 MB/s. The standard is in the process of deployment, but it will take at least one more chipset generation in one or more years until we can assume that most systems will actually be equipped with USB 3.0. eSATA at 6 Gb/s also has the potential to offer additional bandwidth, but we believe that USB 3.0 will dominate.

Originally Posted by zzzlast007

This is from Tom's Hardware:

USB 2.0 has been available for many years and it’s not an exaggeration to say that this interface is available on each and every computer--whether we’re talking about desktop PCs, notebooks, or servers in the Windows world or on Apple systems. And although USB 2.0 is reliable, highly compatible, and easy to use, it does have a disadvantage that forced the industry to move on: USB 2.0 is limited to 480 Mb/s, which translates into 30-35 MB/s maximum bandwidth for typical storage applications. This is certainly more than enough for most device types and for casual storage use, but as soon as you want or need to move many gigabytes of data on a regular basis, you’ll want more throughput.

FireWire (or IEEE 1394) has been around for many years as well. The initial standard, FireWire 400, or 1394a, provides 400 Mb/s throughput and isochronous transfer, which is necessary for real-time transmission of data--something you would want for digital video, for example. FireWire 800, or 1394b, doubled the throughput to 800 Mb/s, but neither of the two FireWire specifications really became mainstream. Although FireWire is popular and widespread, it is not even remotely as prolific as USB.

Finally, we have eSATA, which stands for external Serial ATA (SATA). This is a modification of the SATA standard that most computers use to attach hard drives and optical drives, adjusted to support longer cables for external devices through modified electrical specifications. In addition, connectors are physically different to avoid mixing them up. The cable length of up to 2m is sufficient for storage applications, but both FireWire and USB still support longer cables that are 4.5m and 5m in length. However, eSATA is as fast as internal SATA, which translates into a maximum of 300 MB/s for 3 Gb/s SATA connections.

Future FireWire standards, such as 1394d, could reach 6.4 Gb/s, but these will probably not be very mainstream. USB 3.0 (also known as SuperSpeed USB) is specified at 4.8 Gb/s and has the potential of reaching effective throughput of up to 400 MB/s. The standard is in the process of deployment, but it will take at least one more chipset generation in one or more years until we can assume that most systems will actually be equipped with USB 3.0. eSATA at 6 Gb/s also has the potential to offer additional bandwidth, but we believe that USB 3.0 will dominate.

I have seen this before from tom's hardware and numerous other sources.
However this still tells me nothing on the average speeds that people get who own one of the esata external HDD.

We all know the "potential" that each type offers. I don't base my purchases on "potential" I base it on actual averages from people that I can talk to via a forum or irl not because Tom's hardware or maximumpc says it has the "potential" to reach XX speeds.