faster necessary better?

[Squirrel]

One would imagine that faster is necessary better of course...
but it would be interesting to understand if and how it would be a real improvement to use a Firewire 800 interface on a HardDisk (LaCie) compared to a standard firewire to work with EWQLSO libraries.
(Expecially as to use the Firewire 800 would require using a PCMCIA card)

Anyone with a good tech insight on this?

[Dean Krommydas]

Hey Squirrel...

I'm assuming you are asking "Is faster necessarily better" right?

Well...here's what I have noticed...

I have an EXTERNAL Firewire 800 Drive (I needed to buy & install a card to accomodate it - the slot was available for me...so it wasn't really an issue), 4 internal SATA drives as well as a Muse Receptor. The external firewire 800 & internal SATA drives function with 4 GB of RAM & a good processor.

I think your card, choice of slot to run the card, RAM and processor do also play a role in this.

Anyway...depending on the size of sample being loaded...the Firewire 800 appears to load quicker than all the other drives. To state the obvious... it's twice as fast as the Firewire 400. 400x2 = 800 :D

Anyway..not sure how helpful that is to you...but I can say if speed is what you are after... I certainly see & enjoy the difference in the Firewire 800.

What are you thinking about doing?

[nickysnd]

One comment - Speed is what makes airplanes take off and fly. Unless you are a bird, wings won't be enough, you also need speed.

So, to answer directly your question: when it comes to file transfer, faster=better.

[joenovice]

Anyway...depending on the size of sample being loaded...the Firewire 800 appears to load quicker than all the other drives. To state the obvious... it's twice as fast as the Firewire 400. 400x2 = 800

??? This is confusing me. Are you saying that firewire loads faster than SATA? Usually that wouldn't be right.... SATA transfers at 1.5GB/s or 3GB/s. That's smoking 800MB/s.....

I think there is also some difference in how the data is accessed as well. Interal should have faster access to the processor thanks to MOBO bios. (I don't know the technical on FW drives data path)

[Dean Krommydas]

Hey Joe,

Let me at least try & be clear...

The question/topic at hand I believe was:

Firewire 800 interface on a HardDisk (LaCie) compared to a standard firewire to work with EWQLSO libraries.


800 has proved to be a significant improvement to anything standard. By standard I am assuming FW 400 is what was meant. I have heard all kinds of tests run with all types of circumstances (unrelated to EW that I really don't want to get into) which for the most part show that 800 is better... I have read some reviews/tests which also show only a slight difference between the 2 - but that complicates things & is based on different variables! When it comes to East West libraries though... I believe it is safe to say EWQLSO performs/loads better w/ FW800. I believe this is also why it is required by EW. Anyhow...if you or anyone else is interested in reading up in detail on some of the underlying variables... I suggest a simple google search...because I am by no means an expert and quite frankly just lack the desire to get into this particualr topic in extreme detail! :p Sorry for the laziness! ;)

More to your question though...as you said wisely

Usually that wouldn't be right

You're absolutely right. I mentioned in passing that for me it depends on the size of the sample being loaded. Obviously a huge Symphonic Choirs multi takes more time to load off my internal SATA than let's say several woodwind & brass samples off my External firewire 800 drive. That's all I really meant...although at times I could swear even some smaller samples are very close to the same speed.

I remember reading a quote sometime ago about SATA that goes something like this:

"Keep in mind that these are maximum speeds (when reading about SATA's maxium speeds)...just 'cause the pipe is that fat, doesn't mean you're pushing that much data through it."

Anyhow...I bring this up only because there are also various tests & articles out there in detail (go for google) between SATA & FW800 (pros & cons etc). Again...typcially you are right...the SATA is faster however there are also different rates achieved than what you have posted & exceptions that involve RAID/Card Bus/Bridge Board & more that are outside just the drive's capabilities itself (which again I apologize for not wanting to go there) :o Right now the only place I want to go...is to bed! :D

Take it easy

[joenovice]

Good follow-up.... good post. I'm glad to hear your comments were FW400 vs FW800.

I think when using SATA the choke point for most is the processor and RAM bus speed. If you can get those fast enough SATA RAID should be the fastest.