LaCie's 2big Thunderbolt 2 and Rugged Thunderbolt DAS Review
by Ganesh T S on July 9, 2014 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- LaCie
- Storage
- Seagate
- DAS
- Thunderbolt 2
Miscellaneous Aspects - RAID Rebuild and Daisy Chaining
While the Rugged Thunderbolt version had to be checked for TRIM support, the 2big Thunderbolt 2 had to be subjected to a RAID rebuild. Since the unit also uses an external power adapter, power consumption is also of interest. The LED behind the blue button on the front side of the unit serves as an indicator of the RAID status (amongst other things). The LaCie Desktop Manager also provides insights into the health of the array. We simulated drive loss by pulling out one of the disks during data transfer (the array was obviously configured in RAID 1). The hardware LED status immediately began flashing red. The monitoring program also reflected the degradation. Inserting the disk into a PC's SATA slot surprisingly showed the data preserved on the removed drive. This was a surprise, as we usually find disks subject to hardware RAID not being data-recovery-friendly in nature. The various aspects are covered in the gallery below.
After formatting the drive and putting it back in the 2big Thunderbolt 2's drive bay, RAID rebuild automatically started. Even though the Desktop Manager program doesn't display the progress of the rebuild, it does indicate whether the process is completed or not. The LED in the front panel also stops flashing red and blue after the rebuild is done.
We tracked various power consumption numbers (including the average power consumed during our robocopy tests - noted as 'benchmark mode' below). The collected data, as well as the inferred RAID rebuild duration (tracked by monitoring the power consumed at the wall) are presented in the table below.
| LaCie 2big Thunderbolt 2 Power Consumption & RAID Rebuild | |||
| Activity | Duration | Avg. Power Consumption | |
| USB 3.0 | Thunderbolt 2 | ||
| Idle | - | 17.94 W | 22.03 W |
| Disks Spun Down | - | 4.06 W | 8.49 W |
| Benchmark Mode | - | 23.19 W | 29.47 W |
| RAID-1 Rebuild | 9h 51m 43s | 23.85 W | - |
The 2big unit carries two Thunderbolt 2 ports in order to enable daisy chaining. The 20 Gbps bandwidth is quite helpful when one wants to maintain bandwidth while daisy-chaining a display (or another Thunderbolt peripheral). In order to test out the daisy chaining aspect, we just connected the Rugged Thunderbolt to the spare Thunderbolt 2 port on the 2big unit. We repeated our first performance benchmarks set in this configuration by evaluating data transfer between the two units (with the 2big Thunderbolt 2 in RAID 0).
| LaCie 2big Thunderbolt 2 & Rugged Thunderbolt Daisy Chaining Performance | |||
| Workload | Transfer Rate (MBps) | ||
| Read Target | Rugged Thunderbolt | 2big Thunderbolt 2 | |
| Write Target | 2big Thunderbolt 2 | Rugged Thunderbolt | |
| Photos | 222.88 | 282.22 | |
| Videos | 223.34 | 298.17 | |
| Blu-ray Folder | 263.18 | 334.57 | |
Given that the Rugged's Thunderbolt cable is permanently attached to the unit, the accessibility factor also plays an important role in this common use-case - data transfer can be achieved at Thunderbolt speeds between the on-field unit and the desktop unit meant for the processing workflow without hunting around on the server / workstation for a physical Thunderbolt port.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
ssj3gohan - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
So... thunderbolt is slower, more power hungry and more expensive than USB 3.0. And it's effectively unavailable. I can see why Intel integrates USB 3.0 into their chipsets and not Thunderbolt.Of course, I understand that this is a function of volume; Thunderbolt doesn't really sell and is an Intel exclusive whereas USB 3.0 controllers are made by every man and his dog, so it's much more optimized both in cost and data stream efficiency, not to mention driver compatibility. But this still begs the question: why even include Thunderbolt? It's objectively worse than USB 3.0 and just needlessly increases the price of both Apple and peripheral products.
mmrezaie - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
I would like to see the benchmarks under Mac OS too. They don't rely on bios drivers for thunderbolt and use their own. I think Linux will have the same driver later this year but I think on Mac thunderbolt driver is more optimised.Essence_of_War - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
Agreed. I'd really like to see a USB 3.0-Thunderbolt shoot-out under OS X and Linux as well!I don't know if this is possible Ganesh, but if you could get access to a mac with thunderbolt, it would be pretty neat to see! :)
techwiz2100 - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
Yea I'm a little concerned by these numbers, I mean... Isn't the Mac Pro supposed to be able to drive a 4K display over TB2? I would imagine that's a much more bandwidth heavy application than file transfer. Also maybe the devices themselves or the add-on card are the limitations?Essence_of_War - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that in no case is the theoretical limit of TB being saturated.It's possible that the speed differences are within the margin of error, but my first guess would be some sort of driver/controller issue for TB on Windows.
M/2 - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
I'm a Big Mac Mini fan... I've been trying to rationalize TB, and just can't quite get there. I use external drive over the network for media and backups. I wound up buying a 4-bay USB 3.0 box for $250; with 4-4Tb drives, I have 12Tb of RAID 5 storage for under $1000. So I really don't get the price tag on a 2-bay TB drive.I get 230 MB/s on Blackmagic. That's not that much slower than my buddy's Promise 2 RAID, the reason being the spinning drive are the main limiting factor. And, 30+ % cheaper. And 230 is fast enough for anything I need . You really need 6 bays or SSDs to take advantage of TB.
If I had to do it over, I'd consider the OWC thunderbay box. $450 vs. $250 for the Dyconn Quartz4 box I bought. Just depends what you're using if for. I'm almost there!
M/2 - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
I may be off on the TB speeds. ..just looked at a review on owc , it's twice the speed of USB 3 on RAID 5 ... Like I said, I might decide different todayganeshts - Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - link
As I mentioned in the concluding remarks, for these particular devices, TB is useful only in the daisy chaining scenario. Otherwise, USB 3.0 is going to deliver better performance.Apologies for not testing with Macs. I should have probably noted in the very beginning that we are going to start monitoring Thunderbolt performance on Windows from my side. For Mac-based coverage, Anand is the best bet (for example, the LaCie Little Big Disk review that he put out earlier this year -- which I have also linked in the article).
M/2 - Thursday, July 10, 2014 - link
Agreed! USB 3.0 beats any 1 or 2 drive configuration (IMO), simply because because the drives can 't fill the TB bandwidth (unless you're using SSDs). Sure, TB is cool, but adding USB3 would make a more versatile package.FYI, I see the OWC thunderbay price is now $500, up $50, people must be buying them. Still too much of a premium IMO (unless you're using SSDs and/or really need 500+ Mb/s)
ciparis - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link
You really need to include the Mac numbers; otherwise, nobody will be holding PC manufacturers to task in making these devices perform remotely near their potential. The current situation is abysmal, and with zero reason other than near total incompetence.