It's the original. And would I be using it for anything BUT file/backup services, I'd invest in a graphics card. In fact I took the monitor off of it.
Now if there's an inexpensive way to get better I/O, please enlighten me!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 Mac Pro needs Upward mobility ?!?
- Thread starter cap_walker_666
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac 2008
- Sort by reaction score
Now if there's an inexpensive way to get better I/O, please enlighten me!
MP1,1 already has 2 Gigabit ports. Hook up both ports to your router and you already have I'/O faster than read/write speed of HDDs.
*IF* I decide to try another Mac Pro, which would you suggest 4,1 ; 5,1; 7,1 ? Any particular vendor ?
If I had another port on the hub, I'd definitely plug it in. But say I have two target drives for the database. One is a 2TB internal and a 4TB external (not sure if it's usb 2 or 3). Wouldn't that overload the drives, 2GB/s versus 30GB (the drives) ? I could up the ram to allow for buffered writes...
This is just curiosity, it's no biggie.
1. Thereotically, max read/writing speed of a modern HDD is about 120~140MByte/s = 960~1120Mbit/s (slightly higher than the 1Gbit/s speed of the LAN port), with multiple user to access, speed can drop down.
2. To maximize the LAN speed, you will need specific configuration of the router and the MP itself, setting protocol to communicate simultaneously through both ports. I have no knowledge in this field.
3. USB port on the MP is USB 2.0 (480Mbit/s) therefore it's will speed up if you move all the HDDs to internal. There are 6 SATA ports in the MP1,1. And you always can increase HDD capacity.
If you don't need all the capacity of the HDD, and want more speed, I would suggest you get some old SSD salvaged from de-comissioned servers. Enterprise class SSD are very durable and has better life span than cheap consumer class SSD. I just bought a 1TB SSD, which has been on for 5 years (46k hours) but still got 80% life left.
Up the RAM, if you can find something cheap nearby. I bought my 8x4GB FCB-DIMM for 20$ (2.5$ each)
And finally, unless you use your MP1,1 as a file server for image and video editing terminal, you won't need that much speed on the HDD, caching or LAN ports. Each terminal PC in our company is limited to 100Mbit/s and no one ever complaint about server stagnant or slow down.
I wouldn't suggest anything about your purchase, because it all depends on how much you want to spend and for what purpose. To many people, their old MPs 5,1 are still serving their need fine.
If you are to buy a new one, and have enough knowledge to set-up a server, even the new Mac Mini M1 (699$) plus a USB 3.0 4 bays HDD box is good enough.
A friend of mine, who are selling refurbished Buffalo products, claim that a 8 bays Buffalo file server (500$+HDD) is adequate to serve all the needs of a print shop, with access given to external customer as well (over the internet).
Check the below link if you are thinking about Mac OS server.
macOS Sequoia
macOS Sequoia brings effortless window tiling, web browsing with fewer distractions, new iPhone Mirroring, and support for Apple Intelligence.
www.apple.com
Thanks for the hard figures ! While the drives might be blazing fast, they're throttled by the speed of the interface, 480mbs. Now if this was internal, like you advocate, yup, the throughput would be wunnerful.
These 4TB drives are from much earlier purchases. I'm over 2TB in my shared drive with all files, useful or not, I've collected. That means I can't use my internal 2TB. Now when 4TB become more affordable...
Now the setup is a 250 SSD boot with El Cap, a 500gb with tools, but partitioned so I can put various OS on it, a 4TB that I'm trying to salvage and a 2tb. Then the two 4TB hanging off the back.
If it's just speed I could move Time Machine to the 2TB internal. That's not a bad idea. I'll do that today later. But I'd like to find out how I can order the same ram as you! Extra buffers is good.
Yes, speed on file retrieval is good. Time Machine though is ridiculous. Plus once I start backing up the server, there'll be a heavier network load...
Thanks again.
Are they fairly inexpensive ?
FWIW Since the MP is on an OS that doesn't share as a Time Machine share, I'm moving it back to the Time Capsule.
Absolutely I am. I ran the snow leopard bundle for a while.I wouldn't suggest anything about your purchase, because it all depends on how much you want to spend and for what purpose. To many people, their old MPs 5,1 are still serving their need fine.
If you are to buy a new one, and have enough knowledge to set-up a server, even the new Mac Mini M1 (699$) plus a USB 3.0 4 bays HDD box is good enough.
A friend of mine, who are selling refurbished Buffalo products, claim that a 8 bays Buffalo file server (500$+HDD) is adequate to serve all the needs of a print shop, with access given to external customer as well (over the internet).
Check the below link if you are thinking about Mac OS server.
macOS Sequoia
macOS Sequoia brings effortless window tiling, web browsing with fewer distractions, new iPhone Mirroring, and support for Apple Intelligence.www.apple.com
Far as purchase, it'snot a recommendation on what so much as where/who. When I have a referral I look at that place first.
Some cards are inexpensive. If you want full 10 Gbps performance (1000 MB/s) in slot 1 or slot 2 or nearly full performance (800 MB/s) in slot 3 and slot 4, then you need to spend a little more. If you use an x2 PCIe card (or an x4 PCIe card that is electrically x2) in slot 3 or slot 4, then it will be limited to 200 MB/s because those slots don't support x2 and they are PCIe gen 1.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/usb-3-x-pcie-cards-for-classic-mac-pro.1501482/
Actually since we're talking about MacPro1,1 instead of MacPro3,1, the only way to get max USB performance (≈1000 MB/s) is with something like the HighPoint RocketU 1244A which is an x8 card. An x4 card can only give ≈800 MB/s. I don't remember if all the slots support x2 cards (x2 -> ≈400 MB/s, x1 -> ≈200 MB/s).
Thanks for that! First I'll need to find which USB, 2 or 3, these drives are then lookup their throughput. I don't need to have the capability if the drives can't use it.
[the following a rambling digression from the main thread. feel free to avoid it LOL]
FWIW I had such a hard time trying to setup one of the internals to act as a Time Machine space, I put it back on my Time Capsule. I would have enjoyed using the internal. I believe it's High Sierra is the first MacOS that specifically establishes Time Machine disk space. I don't think I can push the 1,1 to High Sierra.
Besides creating a truly bootable USB installer [I'm having a problem getting one to boot in my old MacBook] there's another issue [for now]. I've a MacBook Pro without an ethernet port. To take advantage of the hardwire the rest of my net uses, I need a USB C to ethernet adapter. Before opting for a Hub rather than a single adapter, I'm trying to find more information on pros and cons for powdered or unpowered hub.
The initial poster is confusing the processor speed and Model Identifier. EveryMac.com is correct as listed.
To understand different identifiers (and the limitations thereof), refer to EveryMac.com's Mac Identification section (everymac.com/id).
Feel free to email EveryMac.com directly if you need help understanding something, too.
To understand different identifiers (and the limitations thereof), refer to EveryMac.com's Mac Identification section (everymac.com/id).
Feel free to email EveryMac.com directly if you need help understanding something, too.
Last edited:
I'm not sure here these posts go, so I'm going tor reply here. Sorry it's late.
Where I purchase these donated computers, they tape up the case covers. Meaning no one can get inside until they are purchased. So, how can I tell the build/model (?) until I buy them. Unless there's some way that would tell me ? Imagine how disappointed I was when I found out the one I purchased was only 1.1.
Is the USB port (an external drive) transfer rate equal to internal drive transfer rate ? [I'm evaluating if purchasing a 5tb internal versus an external 5tb that I already have].
I ran into a problem using a shared drive in PHOTOS: the current version not only will not allow photoslibrary to be on a shared drive with iCloud, it can't be shared either where Time Machine will; exporting photos can have permission errors , locally there's no issues. Where should I post questions on shared permissions and file locking ?
When I was more present on boards, it was a Faux Pas to refer to someone present in the third person. That's totally different from sub topics. So "Everymac" if you'd asked I would have explained that I queried multiple indexes. The serial number lookup in EVERYMAC.COM specified 3.0, that's stated in the early part of the thread. I also directly stated that the EVERYMAC.COM reference stated 3.0 and responses suggested the incorrect reference. That was very embarrassing then disappointing.
Where I purchase these donated computers, they tape up the case covers. Meaning no one can get inside until they are purchased. So, how can I tell the build/model (?) until I buy them. Unless there's some way that would tell me ? Imagine how disappointed I was when I found out the one I purchased was only 1.1.
Is the USB port (an external drive) transfer rate equal to internal drive transfer rate ? [I'm evaluating if purchasing a 5tb internal versus an external 5tb that I already have].
I ran into a problem using a shared drive in PHOTOS: the current version not only will not allow photoslibrary to be on a shared drive with iCloud, it can't be shared either where Time Machine will; exporting photos can have permission errors , locally there's no issues. Where should I post questions on shared permissions and file locking ?
When I was more present on boards, it was a Faux Pas to refer to someone present in the third person. That's totally different from sub topics. So "Everymac" if you'd asked I would have explained that I queried multiple indexes. The serial number lookup in EVERYMAC.COM specified 3.0, that's stated in the early part of the thread. I also directly stated that the EVERYMAC.COM reference stated 3.0 and responses suggested the incorrect reference. That was very embarrassing then disappointing.
No. It's USB 2.0 that tops out at 480 Mbps (60 MB/s excluding overhead - I don't have including-overhead figures handy), the internal is SATA II that tops out at 3 Gbps (260~280 MB/s including overhead).
From the Superuser board:
The theoretical maximums are as follows:
In bits per second, that is:
- USB 1.1 = 12 Mbit/s
- Firefire 400 = 400 Mbit/s
- USB 2.0 = 480 Mbit/s
- FireWire 800 = 800 Mbit/s
- USB 3.0 = 5 Gbit/s
- USB 3.1 = 10 Gbit/s
- eSATA = Up to 6 Gbit/s (750 MB/s) right now as it depend on the internal SATA chip.
- Thunderbolt = 10 Gbit/s × 2 (2 channels)
- Thunderbolt 2 = 20 Gbit/s
- Thunderbolt 3 = 40 Gbit/s
- USB 1.1 = 1.5 MB/s
- Firefire 400 = 50 MB/s
- USB 2.0 = 60 MB/s
- FireWire 800 = 100 MB/s
- USB 3.0 = 625 MB/s
- USB 3.1 = 1.21 GB/s
- eSATA = 750 MB/s
- Thunderbolt = 1.25 GB/s × 2 (2 channels)
- Thunderbolt 2 = 2.5 GB/s
- Thunderbolt 3 = 5 GB/s
This is a perfect example of an incredibly poorly worded question arriving at the incorrect "popular" answer.
"Fast"??? What does that mean?
I have 80 people that I need to move one mile as fast as possible. My choices for vehicle are:
a School bus, top speed 70 miles per hour
a Lamborghini, that can do 220 miles per hour
So which do I choose? The "faster" one?
The point I am making is explained here...
USB 2.0 can push (theoretical maximum) 480 Mbps
Firewire 400 can push (theoretical maximum) 400 Mbps
HOWEVER, the USB bus charges you approximately 20% overhead. This means that the theoretical maximum throughput data rate is closer to 384 Mbps. This is because 20% is used for controlling the bus. That is, control signals are sent through the same pipe that is used to move data.
Firewire does not have this restriction to consider. So in data throughput FireWire 400 will beat USB 2.0, even though USB 2.0 has a higher theoretical maximum.
This is not the only example of why answering a question like this by citing theoretical maximums does not provide a correct answer.
------------------
I post both since I'm similar to the newbie who posts a question that's an "example of an incredibly poorly worded question arriving at the incorrect "popular" answer". But in my defense I'd probably have a subjective comparison from when I ran each.... I KNOW that calculating using all the variables is most correct. Subjective impression is that both are equal. But I also KNOW that impression is from a small sample. It's not the amount of data that's actively read and written in a day. So despite this post that "citing theoretical maximums does not provide a correct answer", I appreciate someone who provides a more objective answer using hard figures and associated variables. Even if I'm not sure how to read the formula LOL.
Some of these are missing some simple overhead (wire encoding method) that should be applied when describing theoretical maximum. Encoding means, if you want to transmit x bits of data, then it takes y bits on the wire (where y is greater than x).
Back in the RS-232 days (serial ports) data was transferred at 300 to 115200 baud typically, (bps) using one start bit, 8 bits of data, and one stop bit. Thats 10 bits per byte.
8b/10b encoding was created to help clocking bits and to balance DC voltage (having too many 1 bits or zero bits in a row is bad). Later, more efficient encodings are used - 64b/66b, 128b/132b, 128b/130b.
USB gen 1 uses 8b/10b encoding, so the theoretical max is 4 Gbps.
USB gen 2 uses 128b/132b encoding, so the theoretical max is 9.7 Gbps.
SATA 6g uses 8b/10b encoding, 4.8 Gbps.
Thunderbolt uses 64b/66b encoding, but the 10, 20, 40 Gbps numbers already take this into account (Thunderbolt is 10.3125 Gbps or 20.625 Gbps).
FireWire numbers are slightly different than the rounded numbers that we usually see. 393.216 Mbps and 786.432 Mbps.
On top of the simple overhead is the complex overhead required for the protocol used (protocol is all the bytes that aren't data). Different methods of transmitting data have different overhead. For example, see https://microchipdeveloper.com/usb:high-speed for USB 2.0 examples.
Instead of these bit rates, or the simple or complex theoretical maxes, it helps to use a benchmark. Different benchmarks give different numbers. I believe on the Mac that AmorphousDiskMark.app sequential test gives the highest numbers. I did some tests (read/write MB/s) with a 2.5" HD drive (not an SSD):
USB 2.0: 15/23
FireWire 400: 30/28
FireWire 800: 69/54
USB 3.0: 77/56
Of course, with an SSD or NVMe, the USB 3.0 speed would be more like 460 MB/s. Not sure why my USB 2.0 numbers are so low. Maybe it's normal. Maybe it's the USB controllers in my external drives. If I try a USB 2.0 to NVMe then I can get slightly better.
Last edited:
In your test, there is two more variables that may impact (hinder) the max speed of Firewire 3.0 and USB 3.0:
- HDD read/write speed (and seek time)
- SATA controller chip (control chip) on the external box.
So, to eliminate the above factors, one can use one 2.5" SATA SSD in all 4 tests.
I'm not sure what kind of answer you want to hear then. SATA II (internal) is faster than USB 2.0 (external). That's all there is to it.
And bear in mind, that in Mac Pro 1,1;
the SATA ports are all SATA 2 (3Gb/s) ~ 300MB/s
PCIe ports are Gen 1 (2.5Gb/s) < USB 3.0
That's per lane, so if you use a ×4 or ×8 USB 3.0 card you should be able to get full USB 3.0 speed.
gen 1 x4 will certainly get you full USB 3.0 but only 80% USB 3.1 gen 2. The only x8 card I know is the HighPoint RU1244A which is probably super expensive. Of course, you can add PCIe 3.0 slots using a PCIe expansion box like the Netstor 255A (but only bandwidth equivalent to gen 1 x16 would be possible for the MacPro1,1 - which is either gen 2 x8 or gen 3 x4)
Yup, 2.5" SATA III SSD limit is around 540 MB/s, much less than the ≈810 MB/s of PCIe 1.0 x4.