eSATA Cable Query

marsmimar said:

My Sony Vaio laptop also has a powered eSATA port. I noticed that when I make a system image using the native Windows 7 imaging tool it takes about 40 minutes on average. But if I use the free Macrium it takes about 25 minutes to image the same drive. I'm not very knowledgeable about the different imaging software available but I do know Macrium lets me choose the amount of compression I want while Windows 7 doesn't. So another possible reason for slower imaging speeds/times could be the imaging software you're using.

With Macrium you need not wait until the image is done. You can continue to use the system whilst Macrium writes the image. Just "hide" Macrium. It will pop back up when it is done.

Iain said:

...This is the disk drive I'm using in the Startech enclosure:
WD Black | Mobile 2.5-inch Hard Drives...

That is one of the fastest 2.5" drives out there. I have three of them and have been happy with their speed.

Iain said:

...BTW, there isn't any assumption of support of SATA III support on my laptop. The system specification clearly states that it is. The internal system disk drive (model MQ01ACF050) is:
https://storage.toshiba.eu/cms/en/hdd/hard_disk_drives/product_detail.jsp?productid=566...

A link leading to a HDD specs page tells us noting about your laptop. Just because a laptop is rated for SATA III doesn't mean it will run at FULL SATA III speeds; it just means it will run faster than SATA II.

Iain said:

...The fastest disk drives are close to matching SSD speed, with a plus of better reliability. I would never trust SSD technology for this application.

That is pure bunk. The slowest SSD will be the holy hairy heck out of the fastest HDD and do so with less noise (actually, no noise) and use far less power. Also, SSDs are now far more reliable than HDDs. The only area where HDDs still reign, for now, is in more storage capacity than SSDs for the same price and, in the case of 3.5" HDDs, far more storage capacity per SATA connection than SSDs currently can deliver (for 2.5" drives, 1TB is the max for both HDDs and SSDs).

whs said:

marsmimar said:

My Sony Vaio laptop also has a powered eSATA port. I noticed that when I make a system image using the native Windows 7 imaging tool it takes about 40 minutes on average. But if I use the free Macrium it takes about 25 minutes to image the same drive. I'm not very knowledgeable about the different imaging software available but I do know Macrium lets me choose the amount of compression I want while Windows 7 doesn't. So another possible reason for slower imaging speeds/times could be the imaging software you're using.

With Macrium you need not wait until the image is done. You can continue to use the system whilst Macrium writes the image. Just "hide" Macrium. It will pop back up when it is done.

I do it all the time.

Iain said:

marsmimar said:

My Sony Vaio laptop also has a powered eSATA port. I noticed that when I make a system image using the native Windows 7 imaging tool it takes about 40 minutes on average. But if I use the free Macrium it takes about 25 minutes to image the same drive. I'm not very knowledgeable about the different imaging software available but I do know Macrium lets me choose the amount of compression I want while Windows 7 doesn't. So another possible reason for slower imaging speeds/times could be the imaging software you're using.

I've always used the native Microsoft imaging programme, even back in the Vista days under USB 2.0.

Reliability is of paramount importance in this application. The main issue here is I believe it should run at a faster pace under eSATA III than it did under eSATA II on my other machine.

Again, your HDD is probably the bottleneck.

whs said:

Hmm, that is strange. eSata and USB cables are quite different. My external enclosure has 2 different ports - one for USB and one for eSata. The plugs and ports are different.

I have seen some laptops have one or more ports that can receive both USB 2.0 and e-SATA cables. See here for an example of one. The link refers to some Dells having them but some Lenovo laptops and notebooks also have them.

I was referring to the time discussion - 25 minutes versus 40 minutes. If you continue working whilst the image is being written, it does not really matter. That was my point.

1. I have found that Esata and Sata II/Sata III ports are completely different. You can't mix and match Esata and Sata II and Sata III cables; their connectors are completely different.

2. I would like some one show me a hard drive that can reach the speeds of a quality SSD.

3. Today's SSD's last as long as any hard drive. One can Google that and read for days if you really want to.

4. The term Up To Speeds is very deceiving. Whether the speeds you get is matching that Up To Speeds speeds varies a lot according to your hardware and what type of data is being transferred.

My USB III and Esata speeds are the same (close enough) on this system when using a external SSD for backups.
Neither reach the Up To Max Speed but close.
If one is using quality hardware and proper programs what ever speed you get is what you get.
As far as I know their is no magic one can do to speed things to reach the max speed if the hardware and programs used don't get you there.

Sata III claims Up To 6.0 speeds. Your millage may vary. For sure it should be faster that Sata II.
A hard drive won't be able to completely use the speed of a Sata II port. Plugging a hard drive into a Sata III port is a waste of a Sata III port. If that is the only choice one has then plug the hard drive into the Sata III port it won't hurt anything. It will just work at the speed of the hard drive and no more.

Again, folks, in real life, there are no SATA I, SATA II, and SATA III cables; they all function the same. The different names are a marketing ploy for charging more for a cable that is essentially identical to a less expensive one. Maximum PC did a test on various cables to prove this. You can read more on the subject here.