# Firewire 800

**URL:** <https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631>\
**Category:** Off Topic\
**Created:** [May 12, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631 "2008-05-12T18:38:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Account](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Account](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Account)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/1 "2008-05-12T18:38:51Z")

</div>

I’m looking to buy another external FW drive (as a bootable backup)  
and found one I like with FW 400, USB 2.0, eSATA but no FW 800.  
Having only had access to FW 400 previously I’m wondering if it’s  
wiser to get one with an 800 option as well now that I’ll soon have a  
computer that supports it. It’s my understanding that there isn’t a  
big real-world performance increase between 800 and 400, except on  
paper.

Suggestions welcome.

Todd

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/2 "2008-05-12T19:25:54Z")

</div>

Although I cannot comment on speed difference between FW 400 and FW 800, I am using FW 800 with a 1TB external dual drive for Time Machine b/u which works well in the background so far. Having some experience in the past with fw 400 “raid” enclosure I am quite skeptical about FW performance and would not recommend it as a main drive, but it does certainly work as a boot drive. I would think FW 800 will be more reliable than 400, but not sure.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ernie\_Simpson](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/a587f6/32.png) [@Ernie\_Simpson](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Ernie_Simpson)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/3 "2008-05-12T20:32:20Z")

</div>

I’m using fw800 with an external 1TB drive. In comparison fw400 feels SLOW.

Of course, that may just be my perception because I KNOW fw400 is slower. I usually have pretty large working graphics, which fw800 seems to handle more efficiently than 400.  
[http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ministackv3](http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ministackv3)

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Todd wrote:

> I’m looking to buy another external FW drive (as a bootable backup)  
> and found one I like with FW 400, USB 2.0, eSATA but no FW 800.  
> Having only had access to FW 400 previously I’m wondering if it’s  
> wiser to get one with an 800 option as well now that I’ll soon have a  
> computer that supports it. It’s my understanding that there isn’t a  
> big real-world performance increase between 800 and 400, except on  
> paper.
> 
> Suggestions welcome.

–  
Ernie Simpson – Freeway 5 Pro User – [http://www.thebigerns.com/freeway/](http://www.thebigerns.com/freeway/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7c8e57/32.png) [@Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Keith_Martin)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/4 "2008-05-12T21:34:37Z")

</div>

Sometime around 12/5/08 (at 15:25 -0400) chuckamuck said:

> Having some experience in the past with fw 400 “raid” enclosure I am  
> quite skeptical about FW performance

FireWire 800 is measurably faster than FireWire 400, particularly  
with data bursts. But it is important to consider everything in the  
chain. Using cheap, slow mechanisms will have an impact. And with  
RAID enclosures, the RAID controller can make a massive different, as  
will the particular level of RAID chosen.

All other things being equal, SATA is faster than FireWire 800, which  
is faster than FireWire 400, which is faster than USB 2.0. (Sure, USB  
2.0 is rated at 480kbps and FireWire 400 at 400kbps, but the  
massively different architecture means it never gets near that  
theoretical maximum in real-world use.)

k

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 12, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/5 "2008-05-12T23:13:53Z")

</div>

> On 12 May. 2008, 9:35 pm, thatkeith wrote:
> 
> RAID enclosures, the RAID controller can make a massive different, as  
> will the particular level of RAID chosen.

Sure, but I won’t ever trust a FW raid enclosure for server level usage ever again. I’ve lost too many files that way to ever be convinced.

> All other things being equal, SATA is faster than FireWire 800, which  
> is faster than FireWire 400,…

External Sata is what i’m using at the moment for server b/u. Definately much faster than FW, and in my opinion more reliable. However, only the Pro level Macs can take advantage of this because they have open slots to add in a sata card, or the internal drive slots are also sata.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_McCallum](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/ec9cab/32.png) [@David\_McCallum](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/David_McCallum)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/6 "2008-05-13T00:06:34Z")

</div>

I have a Western Digital My Book Pro 1TB FW400, 800, USB etc.

Certainly quicker than 400 but not the quietest.

David

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 1:14am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/7 "2008-05-13T01:14:20Z")

</div>

> On 13 May. 2008, 12:06 am, DeltaDave wrote:
> 
> I have a Western Digital My Book Pro 1TB FW400, 800, USB etc.
> 
> Certainly quicker than 400 but not the quietest.

Yep, I have exactly the same drive

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7c8e57/32.png) [@Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Keith_Martin)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:46am UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/8 "2008-05-13T08:46:17Z")

</div>

Sometime around 12/5/08 (at 19:13 -0400) chuckamuck said:

> I won’t ever trust a FW raid enclosure for server level usage ever  
> again. I’ve lost too many files that way to ever be convinced.

_Any_ files lost is too many. But while I absolutely agree that SATA  
is the way to go for a server setup, I can’t agree that FireWire as a  
technology is inherently less safe than SATA. There _will_ be extra  
factors involved.

Of course, it could well be that some FireWire RAID systems are less  
critically specified or robustly built than the average eSATA RAID  
box, as the typical user of those items is probably not as demanding.

But my connections and dealings with Sonnet, Wiebetech and other  
respected drive and RAID system manufacturers and developers have  
never left me feeling that FireWire _as a technology_ is not as  
trustworthy as SATA.

k

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 4:41pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/9 "2008-05-13T16:41:08Z")

</div>

I’m only concerned with the dangers of FW use as server volumes. For any other use I have no problem with Firewire drives as I have used many.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/user_avatar/discourse.softpress.com/waltd/32/2720_2.png) [@waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/waltd)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/10 "2008-05-13T16:59:50Z")

</div>

FIreWire is a communications/connection protocol. It does not  
influence the way that data is written to the drive after it arrives  
there, only the way that it is sent to and from the drive. In my  
experience, if a packet of data is sent using FireWire, it will  
arrive at the destination. There is quite a lot of error-checking  
involved in this process, too.

Your mileage may vary, but that’s what I have seen using both 400 and  
800 variants.

Now for server volumes, I stick to Fiber Channel myself…

(ducks for cover)

Walter

On May 13, 2008, at 12:41 PM, chuckamuck wrote:

> I’m only concerned with the dangers of FW use as server volumes.  
> For any other use I have no problem with Firewire drives as I have  
> used many.
> 
> * * *
> 
> offtopic mailing list  
> email@hidden  
> Update your subscriptions at:  
> [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/11 "2008-05-13T17:10:13Z")

</div>

As I have said, I have no problem with Firewire as a technology. I use it all the time for stand alone storage. It’s when used in a server environment that the problem is apparent where multiple users access the same drive at the same time. Firewire 400 especially has a timing issue that fails in a striped raid situation with too many access tries at one time causing files to be left open or only partially written. Granted, this is partly to do with the FW box the drives are installed in since the hard drives themselves are not FW. I have not tried using a FW 800 based drive housing in this way, but i’m sure there is the potential for the same problem depending on load.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/7c8e57/32.png) [@Keith\_Martin](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/Keith_Martin)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/12 "2008-05-13T18:05:27Z")

</div>

Sometime around 13/5/08 (at 13:10 -0400) chuckamuck said:

> Firewire 400 especially has a timing issue that fails in a striped  
> raid situation with too many access tries at one time causing files  
> to be left open or only partially written.

I’d guess that this is just as likely to be down to bugs in the RAID  
controller coding…

k

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/user_avatar/discourse.softpress.com/waltd/32/2720_2.png) [@waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/waltd)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/13 "2008-05-13T18:47:58Z")

</div>

You don’t mention whether this is soft or hard RAID, either. I have  
played around with soft RAID (I use it to make a mirror of my photos  
on two disks inside my G4 MDD tower.) But for actual multi-user  
access, I am “strictly traditional” and rely on hardware RAID 5,  
connected to the server with Fiber Channel, and the server in  
question is running a full Server version of Mac OS X and nothing else.

How many users are trying to access this server at a time? What OS is  
it running? Is it also trying to be a workstation at the same time?

Walter

On May 13, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Keith Martin wrote:

> Sometime around 13/5/08 (at 13:10 -0400) chuckamuck said:
> 
> > Firewire 400 especially has a timing issue that fails in a striped  
> > raid situation with too many access tries at one time causing files  
> > to be left open or only partially written.
> 
> I’d guess that this is just as likely to be down to bugs in the RAID  
> controller coding…
> 
> k
> 
> * * *
> 
> offtopic mailing list  
> email@hidden  
> Update your subscriptions at:  
> [http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/14 "2008-05-13T18:54:15Z")

</div>

> On 13 May. 2008, 6:48 pm, waltd wrote:
> 
> You don’t mention whether this is soft or hard RAID, either.

OSX server, not workstation, softraid using Apple’s Disk Utility to setup.

> But for actual multi-user  
> access, I am “strictly traditional” and rely on hardware RAID 5

I am in complete agreement with you here. Unfortunately, corporate wallets don’t always understand the technical issues (and therefore reason for large difference in cost) so go with the cheaper path…until they lose important files.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/user_avatar/discourse.softpress.com/waltd/32/2720_2.png) [@waltd](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/waltd)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 7:01pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/15 "2008-05-13T19:01:10Z")

</div>

It’s not just the corporate wallets. I went the cheapest route I  
could for many years, until a complete loss of an entire server  
volume (and irreplaceable data) made me get a lot more serious about  
this. I have spent many thousands to get where I am, but I rest  
easier at night knowing that my data is in more than one drive, in  
more than one place, and that it would take a serious disaster or a  
lot of stupidity on my part (Are you sure you want to delete? Yes/No)  
to make it not so.

Walter

On May 13, 2008, at 2:54 PM, chuckamuck wrote:

> I am in complete agreement with you here. Unfortunately, corporate  
> wallets don’t always understand the technical issues (and therefore  
> reason for large difference in cost) so go with the cheaper  
> path…until they lose important files.

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@chuckamuck](https://discourse.softpress.com/u/chuckamuck)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.softpress.com/t/firewire-800/1631/16 "2008-05-13T19:14:39Z")

</div>

> On 13 May. 2008, 7:01 pm, waltd wrote:
> 
> It’s not just the corporate wallets. I went the cheapest route I  
> could for many years, until a complete loss of an entire server  
> volume (and irreplaceable data) made me get a lot more serious about  
> this.

I know EXACTLY where you are coming from! This is the whole point I was skating around. Moral: DO NOT SKIMP on raid storage! Many sleepless nights could have been avoided… ☹

* * *

offtopic mailing list  
email@hidden  
Update your subscriptions at:  
[http://freewaytalk.net/person/options](http://freewaytalk.net/person/options)