This is exactly the sort of device that needs to be released for Thunderbolt to become popular at the consumer level. At those kinds of speeds, this would make backing up an SSD-equipped Ultrabook or MacBook Air take almost no time, or it could be a good secondary storage solution.
Hopefully it means the market for TB hubs will take off.
I do not understand this love of daisy-chaining. It sucked with SCSI, it sucked with FW, and doubtless it sucks with TB. It means you can't switch off any device except the one at the end of the chain, and whenever you want to move devices you have to unmount everything before you start unplugging. Forcing the use of hubs was one of the few things that USB got right.
I'm not sure it's the market that needs to take off. Although TB hubs (or switches, really) are quite feasible, there's no available silicon to produce one yet. For an 8-port (16-channel) TB switch, you're also talking about something equivalent to a 16-port 10GbE switch, which are currently bloody expensive.
I don't understand the point of such large external NAND storage. I read somewhere before (it may have been on AT) that NAND gates can lose their electrons/charge over the course of several years and data can spontaneously become corrupted, making such a device less than ideal for backups. Please explain this if I have my information wrong. Thanks.
I looked for where I found that information but wasn't able to find it.
SSDs are very robust compared to spinning hard disks. Just think about USB flash drives. I've had a couple of flash drives survive trips through the washing machine without harm. One even made it into the dryer and survived with all of its data intact.
As for why anybody would want such a device? Try uploading disk images for 200 desktop computers for a large company. You could do this with a DVD-ROM or a USB 2.0 external hard disk. Or you could do this with a fast, external SSD over thunderbolt or USB 3.0. Which would you choose?
What about people who transfer documents daily between home and work computers? I currently do this with a USB flash drive. It works great for small transfers, but takes forever if I have to move large files.
I would do neither. If a company has 200 computers... Chances are they're networked and you can push those images to all 200 computers in tandem via the network.
Hell of allot faster than going to each computer and doing it all manually one by one...
I find stuff that is only up to a couple of Gigabytes in size far more convenient to push through the Internet to, even flash drives are quickly loosing their place with me.
Correct, over very long periods of time when unpowered or inactive, NAND chips are not reliable. But to MOST people, a "backup" means keeping a live copy of data that changes frequently, not needing to keep data on the shelf for multiple years.
Maybe we could say that this is good for "backups" but bad for "archiving".
SSD is only arguable for backups if SLC. MLC is not good for backups - wears out too quickly. My 500 GB SSD MLC is good for 74 TB of writes - that's only 150 complete overwrites.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
Back to Article
KPOM - Monday, January 9, 2012 - link
This is exactly the sort of device that needs to be released for Thunderbolt to become popular at the consumer level. At those kinds of speeds, this would make backing up an SSD-equipped Ultrabook or MacBook Air take almost no time, or it could be a good secondary storage solution.dagamer34 - Monday, January 9, 2012 - link
Only one TB port? I don't like this trend.name99 - Monday, January 9, 2012 - link
Hopefully it means the market for TB hubs will take off.I do not understand this love of daisy-chaining. It sucked with SCSI, it sucked with FW, and doubtless it sucks with TB. It means you can't switch off any device except the one at the end of the chain, and whenever you want to move devices you have to unmount everything before you start unplugging. Forcing the use of hubs was one of the few things that USB got right.
repoman27 - Monday, January 9, 2012 - link
I'm not sure it's the market that needs to take off. Although TB hubs (or switches, really) are quite feasible, there's no available silicon to produce one yet. For an 8-port (16-channel) TB switch, you're also talking about something equivalent to a 16-port 10GbE switch, which are currently bloody expensive.MGSsancho - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link
Do you mean PCIe switches? The switch you are referring to are ethernet switches. Thunderbolt uses PCIe. PLX makes some PCIe switches. http://www.plxtech.com/products/expresslane/switch...etamin - Monday, January 9, 2012 - link
I don't understand the point of such large external NAND storage. I read somewhere before (it may have been on AT) that NAND gates can lose their electrons/charge over the course of several years and data can spontaneously become corrupted, making such a device less than ideal for backups. Please explain this if I have my information wrong. Thanks.I looked for where I found that information but wasn't able to find it.
TrackSmart - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link
SSDs are very robust compared to spinning hard disks. Just think about USB flash drives. I've had a couple of flash drives survive trips through the washing machine without harm. One even made it into the dryer and survived with all of its data intact.As for why anybody would want such a device? Try uploading disk images for 200 desktop computers for a large company. You could do this with a DVD-ROM or a USB 2.0 external hard disk. Or you could do this with a fast, external SSD over thunderbolt or USB 3.0. Which would you choose?
What about people who transfer documents daily between home and work computers? I currently do this with a USB flash drive. It works great for small transfers, but takes forever if I have to move large files.
StevoLincolnite - Sunday, January 22, 2012 - link
I would do neither.If a company has 200 computers... Chances are they're networked and you can push those images to all 200 computers in tandem via the network.
Hell of allot faster than going to each computer and doing it all manually one by one...
I find stuff that is only up to a couple of Gigabytes in size far more convenient to push through the Internet to, even flash drives are quickly loosing their place with me.
ljwobker - Saturday, January 21, 2012 - link
Correct, over very long periods of time when unpowered or inactive, NAND chips are not reliable. But to MOST people, a "backup" means keeping a live copy of data that changes frequently, not needing to keep data on the shelf for multiple years.Maybe we could say that this is good for "backups" but bad for "archiving".
Raveh - Wednesday, September 12, 2012 - link
SSD is faster, especially on read.sdw999 - Saturday, January 28, 2012 - link
SSD is only arguable for backups if SLC. MLC is not good for backups - wears out too quickly. My 500 GB SSD MLC is good for 74 TB of writes - that's only 150 complete overwrites.jlyall - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link
$2 a gig.So is there any further news on this one? Hopefully it will cost a quarter of that price mentioned :))