iMac Pro iMac Pro - external storage

[Sahib7]

You can keep the Mac Pro 5,1 running, but stuff it with HDDs and the set it up as a file server, so it is like a NAS.

Oh, i already have a NAS - a Synology DS918+. But storing your Lightroom RAWs onto a NAS is not recommended, I have read a lot of negative comments about that in Forums. The NAS is going to be used as Backup (via Synology Cloudstation and via TimeMachine) and Media Server. And for that purpose it is by far more energy efficient than running the old Mac Pro

By using a RAID0 USB3 device I hope to get better performance in the cases I need to re-develope old RAWs from my catalogue. But the main workflow will be to use the internal SSD for all current stuff and after it is finished move the files off to the USB RAID0 device.

 

[Chancha]

Then I suggest going for a TB3 2 to 5 bay enclosure, it may be overkill for now, but it will be a sound investment for the many years.

 

[Sahib7]

Then I suggest going for a TB3 2 to 5 bay enclosure, it may be overkill for now, but it will be a sound investment for the many years.

Yes that is currently overkill as there is no benefit of TB3 over USB-C (USB 3 Gen 2 has a speed cap of 10GBit/s vs. 40 Gbits/s for TB3) if used with HDDs.
My plan is to buy a RAID case now (Terramaster D2-310 2 bay RAID is my current favourite) and fill it with my two WD Red 3TB (so 10Gbit/s bus speed limit is more than plenty, it is even plenty for most SSDs).
In the future - if SSDs become significantly cheaper - I might change for a big single SSD instead.

 

[Chancha]

Yes that is currently overkill as there is no benefit of TB3 over USB-C (USB 3 Gen 2 has a speed cap of 10GBit/s vs. 40 Gbits/s for TB3) if used with HDDs.
My plan is to buy a RAID case now (Terramaster D2-310 2 bay RAID is my current favourite) and fill it with my two WD Red 3TB (so 10Gbit/s bus speed limit is more than plenty, it is even plenty for most SSDs).
In the future - if SSDs become significantly cheaper - I might change for a big single SSD instead.

There are some considerations that favors TB3 over USB-C:
1) if the enclosure is intended to be the start of a TB3 daisy chain, so you need some spare bandwidth down stream
2) if the Mac has limited TB3 ports
3) if SSD (RAID) is used in the future
4) USB may have good enough speed, but not having dedicated controller is an issue

I myself only have the regular iMac 2017, with its 2 TB3 ports which is rather limiting, this was why I chose a G-RAID instead of USB-C 3.1 gen 2 enclosures even though this is "only" hard drives. That said, with a RAID-0 config, I am getting 400MB/s or so read & write, which is pretty close to SATA SSD sequential speed.

I am also a LR user, with the catalogue/previews/cache on the internal iMac SSD of course, all photos on the RAID, performance of this setup is quite good. Originally I thought of the same, use the internal SSD drive also as a buffer for newly imported photos, but after some tests and actual usages, I found the performance hit of importing directly onto the RAID isn't that far off anyway. The speed gain of using all SSD is noticeable of course, particularly with the iMac/iMac Pro's hitting 2000MB/s+, so your thinking is in a good direction that the RAID can be of lesser performance if most of the real work is done through the SSD anyway.

The only issue IMO is investment wise, a sub-TB3 enclosure, be it USB-C or TB2, are going to be much less sustainable once your setup grows. For my case, I know that some day if I retire or repurpose this RAID unit, I can get really good speed out of the hardware dual SATA RAID controller if I go dual SATA SSD, and that the I/O won't be a bottle neck being TB3. The G-RAID in particular is extra safe, since it has a USB-C 3.1 gen 2 port as well, if ever I plug this thing to a computer without TB3, or TB3 won't take off and USB-C becomes totally mainstream.

 

[danielwsmithee]

For my case, I know that some day if I retire or repurpose this RAID unit, I can get really good speed out of the hardware dual SATA RAID controller if I go dual SATA SSD, and that the I/O won't be a bottle neck being TB3. The G-RAID in particular is extra safe, since it has a USB-C 3.1 gen 2 port as well, if ever I plug this thing to a computer without TB3, or TB3 won't take off and USB-C becomes totally mainstream.

One thing to be aware of, most of the dual drive TB3 enclosures utilitize a SATA controller that won't support the full bandwidth of both SATA ports in RAID0. Most two drive enclosures willl get 600-700MB/s with two SSDs in RAID0, while the same drives in the quad enclosure will get you close to 1000MB/s. It is just a limitation of SATA controller used in most dual drive enclosures.

 

[driftless]

One thing to be aware of, most of the dual drive TB3 enclosures utilitize a SATA controller that won't support the full bandwidth of both SATA ports in RAID0. Most two drive enclosures willl get 600-700MB/s with two SSDs in RAID0, while the same drives in the quad enclosure will get you close to 1000MB/s. It is just a limitation of SATA controller used in most dual drive enclosures.

That is true which is why they may be best used for archival storage.

 

[danielwsmithee]

That is true which is why they may be best used for archival storage.

To be fair the same is also true of many quad enclosure. With 4 SSDs in RAID0 they get you about 1500 -1600 MB/s instead of the theoretical 2200MB/s. You don't get much benefit other than capacity for adding the 4th drive.

There some people that create fusion drives in their external enclosures as well. A 2 drive enclosure with 1 SDD+1 HD combined into a fusion volume. Or a 4 drive enclosure with 2 SSDs and 2 HDs into a single Fusion volume.

 

[whwang]

To be fair the same is also true of many quad enclosure. With 4 SSDs in RAID0 they get you about 1500 -1600 MB/s instead of the theoretical 2200MB/s. You don't get much benefit other than capacity for adding the 4th drive.

Is it OK to put just three drives into a quad enclosure? If so, it saves me some money by not buying the 4th drive.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Is it OK to put just three drives into a quad enclosure? If so, it saves me some money by not buying the 4th drive.

Yes. For these enclosures, they just show up as independent disks to your system. You can get a quad enclosure and use it at first with just a single drive, and add drives as your needs expand.

 

[Sahib7]

ne thing to be aware of, most of the dual drive TB3 enclosures utilitize a SATA controller that won't support the full bandwidth of both SATA ports in RAID0. Most two drive enclosures willl get 600-700MB/s with two SSDs in RAID0,

That is only important when you want to pack SSDs into it. Due to cost vs. size I will stuff HDDs into these - so even with RAID0 all USB 3 (especially Gen 2) and TB2/3 drive enclosures are sufficient.

But this is a very important information for someone who wants to install SSDs in external enclosures!

 

[danielwsmithee]

That is only important when you want to pack SSDs into it. Due to cost vs. size I will stuff HDDs into these - so even with RAID0 all USB 3 (especially Gen 2) and TB2/3 drive enclosures are sufficient.

But this is a very important information for someone who wants to install SSDs in external enclosures!

True. I suspect over the next few years we will see a transition away from using SATA for SSDs anyways. I expect form factors like the Lacie Bolt 3, and OWC Envoy Pro EX to become very popular for those looking for external SSDs. Once the market matures a little and prices for M.2 SSDs drops more.

https://www.lacie.com/personal/special-edition/bolt3/
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/TB3ENVPR20/

I'd love to see a 2 or 4 bay thunderbolt enclosure that has an M.2 PCIe slot plus 2 or 4 SATA drive bays. It would be perfect for an external fusion drive array. The closest system on the market like that that I know of is the Drobo 5D3, but it uses Drobo proprietary accelerator caching algorithm so it much more expensive, and has lousy performance.

 

[Bradleyone]

Trying to decide on my next external drive, for quick, full disk Carbon Copy Cloner based backups:

SanDisk Extreme 900 vs. Samsung T5

Both USB-C 3.1 gen 2. SanDisk supposedly offers ~800 MB/s (achieved through internal RAID I believe) vs the Samsung's ~500MB/s.

I have a growing collection of Samsung T3 and T5 drives and have a fondness for them but have no experience of the SanDisk.

Anyone used both and noticed a difference and/or have a preference?