New I.5 TB Backup Drive -- Best to Partition?

Soniclight wrote on 8/20/2009, 6:38 PM

I am well aware of the advantage of partitions (if one goes kaput, at least the others may be OK -- though not if it's hardware kaput). But since it is not for reading and writing files used in Vegas, it may not be necessary?

I'm going to use my two 250 Gb drives for those files, i.e. one only for my large original files, some being multiple Gig .avi. The work copies that I edit.

For now, I just did full drive formatting (not just the quick version) and nothing is on it. Hence why I'm posting this: got some decidin' to do.

USB 2.0 vs. Firewire for Backup Purposes

I've been using Firewire for back up drive but the external interface went screwy on me so surrendered to and got one for this drive in what is most common these days for such purposes, USB 2.0

I'm having some problems with recognition with this probably due to my motherboard though the Bios say I can do up to 1.2 Gbps transfer in 2.0. Not ideal, but fast enough for me.

I've looked at some on-line charts comparing transfer rates between USB 2.0 and Firewire and it pointed to that the larger the files, the better job Firewire does (can be up to 30-40% faster).

But again, this is for backup only, not using while running Vegas.

I know the more super-pros among you probably use network stuff so it's not applicable to this dilemma. So I'd like to have some feedback from those who DO use USB vs. Firewire.

Right now, I've rigged the drive internally, but eventually I want it to be external so I can shut it off when not in use. I've made drives last for many years by taking good care of them -- including rigging pretty hefty fans that can bring the drive surface heat to almost nil.

Got any thoughts on both issues?
Thanks.

Comments

Soniclight wrote on 8/20/2009, 11:00 PM

Pardon the... bump.

John_Cline wrote on 8/20/2009, 11:16 PM

First of all, USB 2.0 is 480Mbps, not 1.2Gbps. IEEE-1394a (Firewire) is 400 Mbps. However, transfers in USB 2.0 have to be handled by the CPU and Firewire transfers are bus mastered and don't involve the CPU. There is also a lot more transfer overhead with USB 2.0. Generally speaking USB 2.0 transfers max out at about 30 megabytes per second, Firewire transfers can be around 40 megabytes per second. Neither of these figures comes anywhere near the capability of a modern hard drive on an eSATA connection. eSATA is capable of up to 300 megabytes/second, but a single hard drive is only physically capable of just over 100.

For what you're doing, it doesn't really matter much, you're backing files up to an external drive. USB 2.0 is going to take a little longer, that's about it. Also, I don't see any point in partitioning the drive. Just plug it in and back up your files.

ritsmer wrote on 8/20/2009, 11:18 PM

Just my 2 cents:

An internal drive also spins down when it has not been used for some time.

One reason for using external drives is that they can be removed and put into a safe place - anticipating burglary, fire etc. - so that having 2 external drives and changing each other day gives a reasonable security.

Another is that if your PC's disk-interface gets ill it will not affect the external drives.

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 8/21/2009, 12:50 AM

I have both 1394a (400Mbps), 1394b (800Mbps) and USB2.0 (480Mbps) external drives. When copying files from an internal SATA(3.0Gbps) to an external drive I get the following average speeds:

1394b - 72MByte/s
1394a - 42Mbyte/s
USB2.0 - 26Mbyte/s

Guess why I got the Firewire800 intefrace PCI card (few mobos have this as standard) for my 1.5Tbyte external backup HD. Yes - just for the speed. I backup almost 3 times faster compared with a USB2.0 drive. If it is a huge backup, going from 3 hours to 1 hour makes a big difference. For the fastest speed eSATA would be the choice, but is not that practical as Firewire800.

The situation becomes even worse if you copy data from an USB2.0 HD to another USB2.0 HD. The transfer speed drops to a crawling 13..15Mbyte/s - even if both drives are connect separately (no hubs) to different USB ports in the PC. Copying from a Firewire HD to and USB2.0 HD (or vice versa) is just limited by the slowest (USB) speed. So try to avoid USB to USB backups -they are SLOW.

I run these tests on Vista x64 and a Quad core QX9650 clocked at 3,8GHz.

Hopefully this info is of use.

Christian

Xander wrote on 8/21/2009, 3:03 AM

In addition to my RAID-5 NAS, I have five 1.5TB drives for my stock footage and backing up my NAS. I don't partition the the drives.

I also bought a Bytec Mobile Rack for each drive. This means I can hot swap them and use the full speed of SATA. I keep the backup drive off-site for extra precaution and update it once a month, I.e. Synced with the NAS which I use for daily backups.

Soniclight wrote on 8/21/2009, 9:20 AM

Thanks for in-depth responses.

HD Partition/s -- Gotcha, I'll leave as is. It's logical, not primary anyway. As to eSATA, should have thought of it, but my Seagate 1.5TB cost me only USD $89 at Frys. Couldn't pass that up.

USB Issue -- Fate has intervened. My computer still doesn't like the external interface, so I've rigged up the drive and its fan plugged internally even though it sits outside in its own enclosure (DIY style). This looks like crap, but its running cool and happy.

Since spin-down does occur anyway as noted, I'll live with this until I decide otherwise.

Coursedesign wrote on 8/21/2009, 9:38 AM

It's not the drives that are eSATA, it's the connection from the external enclosure to your computer.

It uses the SATA drive's signals, with just "a different cable."

Soniclight wrote on 8/21/2009, 10:55 AM

Coursedesign,

"It's not the drives that are eSATA, it's the connection from the external enclosure to your computer."

OK, that's right. Thanks. I've been up all night working on a video that I had to send over the Net by 10 a.m. or so, hence my brain-power has been steadily fading since about sunrise.

Depending on if I can rig my motherboard to accept eSATA, I'll look into it.

john_dennis

I looked at the hard drive failure white paper you suggested, but for the above reason (getting mentally foggy), I skipped around and read the conclusions. Which seemed to not come up with much conclusions one can nail down, while (sort of) debunking stuff such as temperature.

I just go by basic physics: heat speeds up decay/weakening of the molecular structure of things. Ergo, keeping HDs around or slightly below room temperature just seems sensible :)

Soniclight wrote on 8/21/2009, 7:31 PM

Just discovered something after XP did some updates. Said new backup drive has something I've never seen before, installation of what looks like .NET files and .exe. Four folders...

8e99bb745fc2f3996233e18e4f9d80

Typical update file naming by MS.
Negligible room taken, +/-100 Mb.

My guess is that since I have .NET installed due to some software I use (perhaps even Vegas), some server at MS decide that my new drive pointed to being a potential server and/or on a network Not applicable, I'm just a stand-alone PC.

Maybe giving this drive "Z:\" is some secret inter-server "Hey, I'm a server, update me, dude" lingo? lol

These folders clutter up my drive aesthetically, no biggie but:

--- Do I really need these on said drive? If not, is it safe to delete them (after temporarily disabling corresponding Services to do so)?

Thanks.

craftech wrote on 8/21/2009, 7:46 PM

I use an Internal Drive Enclosure and backup to internal hard drives. I use Norton Ghost 2003 to back up my main drive by sticking in an internal hard drive and then removing it when I am done. I also stick other internal hard drives into the enclosure to back up video files for archiving. Great enclosure for $15 dollars.

John

Soniclight wrote on 8/21/2009, 8:21 PM

My system had severe indigestion with Symantec Ghost :) I use Acronis True Image 11. Happy as a clam with TI for years. As far enclosures, I may look into eSata interface since my system isn't happy with USB 2.0 for now.

Just discovered my mobo isn't a dinasour, it does have one eSATA connector for external hook up. Kwel...

Steve Mann wrote on 8/21/2009, 9:39 PM

"An internal drive also spins down when it has not been used for some time."

Depends on the motherboard, BIOS and drivers. In fact, I haven't seen an internal drive that does this except on a laptop.

My external NAS drive does shut down after a few minutes of non-use.

Steve Mann