Super Talent Announces World's First USB 3.0 RAIDDrive

[btarunr]

its barely above sata II speeds (320MB/s vs 300MB/s)
speed is not the awesomeness, its USB 3.0 - and a product that can truly make use of it

It's significantly above SATA 3 Gb/s speeds. 300 MB/s is the theoretical max for SATA 3 Gb/s, but maybe due to interface overhead, the actual max could be lower. For instance, it will be tough to find a SATA 3 Gb/s SSD with 280~290 MB/s speeds. Speed indeed is the awesomeness.

 

[btarunr]

What a strange way of thinking.

Of course it doesn't bottleneck its bandwidth in any way. That is not even logical.

It does, however, makes it a lousy OS drive, if the latency of USB 3.0 is anything near that of USB 2.0.

You can have 500MB/s sustained bandwidth on a USB 2.0 flash drive, but if the latency is anything above 20ms, which I think it will, the reason for buying this device will be null.

If USB had great latency, everyone would be using it. But their awful latency is why everyone frowns upon any kind of video or audio device connected to USB, even whilst it has sufficient bandwidth.

I did not use the word 'bottleneck'. 'mars' (to mar) is not the same thing. I meant for latency to negate the transfer speeds, and so far nothing suggests for USB 3.0 it's that way.

And I do not understand your take on 'latency'. Are you referring to USB 2.0 flash drives' access times being higher than conventional HDDs thereby making them unsuitable for running an OS? If so, that is incorrect. Interface latency and access times for current USB 2.0 flash drives are lower than those of conventional HDDs. That is exactly what Windows Vista / 7 ReadyBoost feature exploits.

The thing that so far stood between USB 2.0 flash drives from running an OS were that conventional HDDs had a clear bandwidth advantage, and rarely did a USB 2.0 flash drive offer speeds of over 32 MB/s.