PDA

View Full Version : Laptop with External HD



David & Renee MacDonald
2004-12-27, 12:05
I would like to know if a lap top computer set up with an external HD
(with all the music files) connected via USB 2 or Firewire would work
with a Squeezebox . Would this set up be slower than a PC with an
internal HD , would there be any other issues with the use of an
external HD?

Thanks,

David


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004

Jack Coates
2004-12-27, 12:12
David & Renee MacDonald wrote:
> I would like to know if a lap top computer set up with an external HD
> (with all the music files) connected via USB 2 or Firewire would work
> with a Squeezebox . Would this set up be slower than a PC with an
> internal HD , would there be any other issues with the use of an
> external HD?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>

I assume you mean as the computer that slimserver runs on. This will
work fine, as long as you configure your laptop not to go to sleep.
Going to sleep would stop the music playback, for obvious reasons.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

JJ
2004-12-27, 12:13
Should work well. Yes, the hard drive wouldn't be as fast as an internal
drive due to the USB or firewire interface, but it should be plenty fast
enough for two-channel audio.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David & Renee MacDonald" <davidmacdonald (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 12:05 PM
Subject: [slim] Laptop with External HD


>I would like to know if a lap top computer set up with an external HD
>(with all the music files) connected via USB 2 or Firewire would work
>with a Squeezebox . Would this set up be slower than a PC with an
>internal HD , would there be any other issues with the use of an external
>HD?

Jack Coates
2004-12-27, 12:35
JJ wrote:
> Should work well. Yes, the hard drive wouldn't be as fast as an
> internal drive due to the USB or firewire interface, but it should be
> plenty fast enough for two-channel audio.
>
>

sorry, gotta call BS on that. A modern 7200 RPM drive is going to get an
average read speed of about 30 MB/s, with peaks up around 50 or 60 MB/s.
This is well under USB 2.0's 480 MB/s. I run multiple virtual servers on
a 7200RPM USB2 drive connected to a laptop with objective speeds
comparable to running on real servers.

However, you're certainly correct that it's way faster than necessary
for streaming audio -- heck, a USB 1.1 drive could probably keep up.

One other thing, if you're working with windows, you should defrag a
lot. NTFS is pathetic in this regard and needs a utility like Diskeeper
to keep performance from falling apart.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

Jeff Fila
2004-12-27, 12:48
USB 2.0's speed is 480Mbps (Megabits per second). Not MB/s, (Megabytes
per second). 480Mbps equals 60MB/s.


On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:35:23 -0800, Jack Coates <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org> wrote:
> JJ wrote:
> > Should work well. Yes, the hard drive wouldn't be as fast as an
> > internal drive due to the USB or firewire interface, but it should be
> > plenty fast enough for two-channel audio.
> >
> >
>
> sorry, gotta call BS on that. A modern 7200 RPM drive is going to get an
> average read speed of about 30 MB/s, with peaks up around 50 or 60 MB/s.
> This is well under USB 2.0's 480 MB/s. I run multiple virtual servers on
> a 7200RPM USB2 drive connected to a laptop with objective speeds
> comparable to running on real servers.
>
> However, you're certainly correct that it's way faster than necessary
> for streaming audio -- heck, a USB 1.1 drive could probably keep up.
>
> One other thing, if you're working with windows, you should defrag a
> lot. NTFS is pathetic in this regard and needs a utility like Diskeeper
> to keep performance from falling apart.
>
> --
> Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
> Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!
>

Jack Coates
2004-12-27, 13:26
Jeff Fila wrote:
> USB 2.0's speed is 480Mbps (Megabits per second). Not MB/s, (Megabytes
> per second). 480Mbps equals 60MB/s.
>
right, sorry about the typo. Still fast enough for a consumer-grade
hard-drive.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!

stephen van vuuren
2004-12-28, 02:20
USB (and firewire drives to a lesser degree) drives have much higher
CPU usage and higher bus latency than internal IDE or SATA drives -
thus performance will be less than internal. However, not an issue
with Squeezebox probably would run fine off CD-ROM or DVD. I'm running
my files off a network share at only 100 Megabits full duplex and
that's plenty of throughput. Unless you have CPU cycle issues that USB
usage would aggravate, even a USB 1.1 drive should work fine. Browsing
large playlists or folders would be slower perhaps.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:26:19 -0800, Jack Coates <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org> wrote:
> Jeff Fila wrote:
> > USB 2.0's speed is 480Mbps (Megabits per second). Not MB/s, (Megabytes
> > per second). 480Mbps equals 60MB/s.
> >
> right, sorry about the typo. Still fast enough for a consumer-grade
> hard-drive.
>
> --
> Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
> Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!
>

Don Messerli
2005-01-03, 09:48
I'm running SlimServer on an 800MHz IBM ThinkPad using an external USB
2.0 hard drive. The external drive in this setup is faster than the
internal drive in the laptop. Access to the internal hard drive is
rather slow. Of course, I know your question was vs. the internal
hard drive on a desktop, which would probably be faster.


On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:20:56 -0500, stephen van vuuren
<sevensmilingsharks (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> USB (and firewire drives to a lesser degree) drives have much higher
> CPU usage and higher bus latency than internal IDE or SATA drives -
> thus performance will be less than internal. However, not an issue
> with Squeezebox probably would run fine off CD-ROM or DVD. I'm running
> my files off a network share at only 100 Megabits full duplex and
> that's plenty of throughput. Unless you have CPU cycle issues that USB
> usage would aggravate, even a USB 1.1 drive should work fine. Browsing
> large playlists or folders would be slower perhaps.
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:26:19 -0800, Jack Coates <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org> wrote:
> > Jeff Fila wrote:
> > > USB 2.0's speed is 480Mbps (Megabits per second). Not MB/s, (Megabytes
> > > per second). 480Mbps equals 60MB/s.
> > >
> > right, sorry about the typo. Still fast enough for a consumer-grade
> > hard-drive.
> >
> > --
> > Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
> > Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip since 1996!
> >