Have a new hard drive, how much faster would it be?


Author
Message
themagicman
themagicman
Junior Member
Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30, Visits: 41
Hi there,
I just ordered for a new hard drive , it's a fantom drive 4 TB running at 7200 rpm. . I was wondering how much faster will the image be made not using a 5400 rpm? Any help is greatly appreciated..
Froggie
Froggie
Master
Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 856, Visits: 7.3K
Given two identically designed hard drives with the same areal densities, a 7200 RPM drive will deliver data about 33% faster than the 5400 RPM drive. Consequently, this specification is important when evaluating the expected performance a hard drive or when comparing different HDD models.

That said, there are two other actors involved with image creation... your CPU speed and the hardware connection used by your new disk.  Your CPU needs to compress all that backup DATA while it's spewing that DATA out to your shiny new disk.  If the CPU is of a much older generation, that will become a factor in the backup speed regardless of the disk in use.  The connection used for your new disk (internal SATA, USB2, USB3) may even be a bigger speed restricting component than the CPU.  Internal SATA will give you the greatest speed available assuming your CPU isn't too old.  A USB3 connection, if the proper driver software is available for use with that type of connection, will usually be able to keep up with your new disk.  A USB2 connection will be the driving force in your backup speed and WILL NOT be able to take advantage of any high-speed storage device.
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
You didn't specify how this new disk would be used, i.e. attached internally or via USB 3.0 (or 2.0) or even whether this was intended to be used as a source disk or destination disk.  You also didn't provide any details about your outgoing disk other than its rotational speed, so answers here will necessarily be generalized.  But the short and sweet answer is that in almost all cases, the write performance of the destination is the bottleneck when it comes to backups, so if this new disk is intended to replace your current source disk, it probably won't change anything.  If it's a new destination disk and it's connected either internally or via USB 3.0, both of which have enough bandwidth to saturate a single spinning disk's capacity, then spinning disks can typically manage 70-120 MB/s.  If you're upgrading from USB 2.0, then you should expect a drastic improvement, on the order of 3-5x -- but that's mostly because of USB 3.0, not your disk's rotational speed.  If you were already on USB 3.0, you may see an improvement, but I wouldn't expect anything huge.

If you're interested in techy details, to expand on Froggie's answer a bit, it's relatively unlikely that your disks will have similar areal densities, and Froggie also didn't mention number of platters inside the drive as a factor.  For example, you can build a 2TB drive out of 5x400GB platters or 4x500GB platters, or even 2x1TB platters these days.  All else being equal, more platters means more throughput (and also more noise, power consumption, and heat).  More areal density also means more throughput, which is why if you have a 2TB drive and a 3TB drive with the same number of platters, the 3TB drive may be faster.  But notice that if you keep capacity constant, increasing platters (better performance) means reducing per-platter areal density (lower performance), so the net performance result of various design decisions isn't always obvious even if you have detailed specs of the drive's design.

Edited 5 January 2018 3:37 PM by jphughan
themagicman
themagicman
Junior Member
Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30, Visits: 41
jphughan - 5 January 2018 3:33 PM
You didn't specify how this new disk would be used, i.e. attached internally or via USB 3.0 (or 2.0) or even whether this was intended to be used as a source disk or destination disk.  You also didn't provide any details about your outgoing disk other than its rotational speed, so answers here will necessarily be generalized.  But the short and sweet answer is that in almost all cases, the write performance of the destination is the bottleneck when it comes to backups, so if this new disk is intended to replace your current source disk, it probably won't change anything.  If it's a new destination disk and it's connected either internally or via USB 3.0, both of which have enough bandwidth to saturate a single spinning disk's capacity, then spinning disks can typically manage 70-120 MB/s.  If you're upgrading from USB 2.0, then you should expect a drastic improvement, on the order of 3-5x -- but that's mostly because of USB 3.0, not your disk's rotational speed.  If you were already on USB 3.0, you may see an improvement, but I wouldn't expect anything huge.

If you're interested in techy details, to expand on Froggie's answer a bit, it's relatively unlikely that your disks will have similar areal densities, and Froggie also didn't mention number of platters inside the drive as a factor.  For example, you can build a 2TB drive out of 5x400GB platters or 4x500GB platters, or even 2x1TB platters these days.  All else being equal, more platters means more throughput (and also more noise, power consumption, and heat).  More areal density also means more throughput, which is why if you have a 2TB drive and a 3TB drive with the same number of platters, the 3TB drive may be faster.  But notice that if you keep capacity constant, increasing platters (better performance) means reducing per-platter areal density (lower performance), so the net performance result of various design decisions isn't always obvious even if you have detailed specs of the drive's design.

It has a usb3 , sorry I mentioned that it's not an 5700 RPM, it's an crucial 275GB SSD. I want to use the external drive as an destination drive from my ssd. sorry about the confusion.. Thanks for the replies guys. Thanks again
Froggie
Froggie
Master
Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)Master (1.5K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 856, Visits: 7.3K
This might give you an idea on what to expect from your new setup (if it really is USB3 at both ends)...

SSD C:/ (67.41gB) imaged to a USB3-connected 7200rpm drive (commercial Seagate) producing a 35.6gB image in 7-min, 15-sec.  The Reflect compression process looks like it can use up to FOUR processing paths (Cores/threads) at one time to do its compression work, using 16% of my entire processor (i7  3.4-3.8 megahertz).

Of course any DIFFERENTIAL or INCREMENTAL image based on the FULLtaken above will be much, much faster.  Hope this helps...
Edited 5 January 2018 5:43 PM by Froggie
themagicman
themagicman
Junior Member
Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)Junior Member (51 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30, Visits: 41
Thanks so much for your help. Thanks again
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Similar Topics

Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search