Fire Wire or USB for External Harddrive

[Len Lanetti]

I'm starting the process of moving all the cra.. er, data off of my old PC's (at least 6 harddrives I can think of off the top of my head). I did find a device to actually mount the existing hard drives and connect via USB but there are significant downsides. The unit only supports two hard drives so I'd have to buy at least 3 of 'em and the cost of one is about on par with the cost of a modern multi gig 7,200 RPM external hard drive. So, I'll be buying one of them.

The choice comes down to two different brands, Seagate and Western Digital. Both offer the ability to connect via USB. One offers the ability to also connect via Fire Wire.

My PCs have Fire Wire ports but I've never used them. I've got plenty of USB ports available across the home network but I've also got a lot of stuff already plugged into USB. Three printers, a scanner and a Leap Frog cartridge writer for the kids Leap Pads. Eventually, I'll probably be getting a Jepp Writer (or whatever they call the thing) so that will probably go on the USB channel as well.

My question is...I'm thinking of getting the unit with the Fire Wire capability so as to use that under utilized "channel" that is available. My thinking is that the bandwidth is there why not use it instead of loading more on to the USB channel. Is this a valid thought. Having never connected anything to Fire Wire I'm not sure if the experience will be plug and play or plug and pray. Any comments appreciated.

Thanks,

Len

 

[Everskyward]

I'm sure someone who knows more about computers will have a better answer, but I bought an Iomega external HD and used the Firewire option. The only glitch was that the connection between the cable and my computer was not right (it didn't have the correct number of pins) so I had to also get a card. Other than that it works fine. If I can figure out how to make it work, anyone can.

 

[wsuffa]

Firewire is a little faster than USB can be. It's also dedicated.

Some implementations of USB slow down to match the slowest device on that particular controller. If that happens, USB 2 slows down to USB 1 speed, and that's pretty slow for a disk drive.

 

[Brian Austin]

If Firewire is available wherever you want to use the drive and your USB is filled up, I'd use the Firewire. USB is more prevalent, however, so moving it later might be an issue.

USB 2.0 and Firewire speeds aren't significantly different. There is a HUGE difference with USB 1.x, however.

 

[Greebo]

Firewire is somewhat less readily available for use from machine to machine than USB, so if you have to take the drive to unknown locations, go for USB.

If you know Firewire is always available, use it.

 

[jesse]

Based on what you just said, and my experiences with the common Seagate and Western Digital external drives. I am assuming the Seagate has the firewire AND the USB. It would be the way to go since you can use either.

I would personally use the firewire..Erm I'm sorry. IEEE1394. whenever possible. It has MUCH better sustainable transfer speeds whereas USB 2 tends to be good at bursts but that is about it.

Back at my previous job where I had easy access to such things, I went ahead and did a few transfer tests using firewire 400 and USB 2.0. Actually I used the Seagate drive I am assuming you are talking about. There was a pretty significant difference with the firewire transferring large amounts of data. It was about 30% faster.

Also Seagate makes great hard drives these days. On their internal drives they have a five year warranty. The external is only going to have a one year, But the drive inside the external is the same thing. So you can trust that it will be pretty solid.

 

[AirBaker]

Firewire... Especially if you have the Ext HD case that has both ports.

And... It's fun to say "FIREWIRE"...

 

[Len Lanetti]

And... It's fun to say "FIREWIRE"...

You know what is even better...Dark Fiber...I love it. I use it in every sales presentation....it provides the pipe for a real time hot sync between our primary data center and our DRC...also allows us to use the DRC equipment for load balancing.

Len

 

[Brian Austin]

You know what is even better...Dark Fiber...I love it. I use it in every sales presentation....it provides the pipe for a real time hot sync between our primary data center and our DRC...also allows us to use the DRC equipment for load balancing.

Len

Uhm...how can it be dark if you're using it? Dark fiber refers to fiber optic lines laid out and installed but not connected to equipment.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Uhm...how can it be dark if you're using it? Dark fiber refers to fiber optic lines laid out and installed but not connected to equipment.

Brian,

I don't know...just glad I never gave you a sales pitch. :<)

Even better would be Wave Division Multiplexing but I don't think I could say it with a straight face or without thinking of Dr. Who.

Here's the 411 from HP... from the web url http://h18006.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/11617_div/11617_div.html

HP Continuous Access EVA provides the capability to replicate data over direct Fibre Channel, covering distances of up to 100 km (~62 miles) via the Very Long Distance GBIC and 35 km with Small Form Factor Pluggable (SFP) 2Gb/sec transceivers. Data replication can be performed at full 100/200 MB Fibre Channel speeds.
HP Continuous Access EVA also supports Wave Division Multiplexing (WDM) optical networks, regardless of manufacturer. WDM provides high bandwidth connectivity of enterprise level SAN over a metropolitan area network via private or public dark fibre optic networks. Remote replication via WDM is ideal when customers already have existing fibre optic cables between the two sites but are unable to install additional cables. WDM maximize the existing fibre optic infrastructure.
Support for Fibre Channel over Internet Protocol or Fibre Channel Over Sonet enables HP Continuous Access EVA to replicate data across IP or Sonet networks. Several vendors have been qualified for interoperability with StorageWorks products to encapsulate FC data packets into IP packets. IP data packets are transferred across an Ethernet 10/100 or GbE network. Additional vendors provide products that can covert Fibre Channel directly to OC3, 6, 12, 24 or 48 Sonet networks. This enables users to take full advantage of their infrastructure already in place and leverage the IP knowledge.
More information on SAN Extensions can be found in the "HP StorageWorks Continuous Access and Data Replication Manager SAN Extensions Reference Guide" available at http://h18006.www1.hp.com/products/storage/software/conaccesseva/index.html.


Len

 

[mikea]

You know what is even better...Dark Fiber...I love it. I use it in every sales presentation....it provides the pipe for a real time hot sync between our primary data center and our DRC...also allows us to use the DRC equipment for load balancing.

I had pointy-haired boss who would toss around "fiber" as in "they have a fiber link" back in the days when you couldn't get dark fiber from anybody. I could not convince him that SONET or a T3 <> fiber. I was going to leave him a box of high fiber All Bran at some point so he would have "fiber"...

 

[gismo]

Even better would be Wave Division Multiplexing but I don't think I could say it with a straight face or without thinking of Dr. Who.

That's supposed to be called "Wavelength Division Multiplexing" AKA different colors for different channels. "Wave Division" is the shortened version for those pointy haired boss types, AFaIK.

 

[Brian Austin]

I had pointy-haired boss who would toss around "fiber" as in "they have a fiber link" back in the days when you couldn't get dark fiber from anybody. I could not convince him that SONET or a T3 <> fiber. I was going to leave him a box of high fiber All Bran at some point so he would have "fiber"...

Heh. I had a non-tech boss insist that T-1's were fiber to the building. I finally had a telco tech show him at the pedestal when we were installing another circuit. He looked up at the poles and said our T-1 must be through those instead...pointing at the transformers.

I gave up after that.

 

[Brian Austin]

That's supposed to be called "Wavelength Division Multiplexing" AKA different colors for different channels. "Wave Division" is the shortened version for those pointy haired boss types, AFaIK.

Yup.

And if you REALLY want to have fun, try DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexing). Smaller bandwidths between frequencies (ie colors) with different encoding for the same speed (or faster now, I imagine) per channel, allowing for more channels per interface.

I sometimes miss enterprise network engineering. All the cool stuff.