Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #119251 > unrolled thread

keeping files on an external drive

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-08 08:44 -0500
    Re: keeping files on an external drive Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> - 2018-11-08 09:13 -0500
      Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-08 09:47 -0500
        Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 09:57 -0400
        Re: keeping files on an external drive Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> - 2018-11-08 10:29 -0500
          Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
    Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 09:49 -0400
    Re: keeping files on an external drive Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-11-08 14:52 +0000
      Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-08 16:09 +0000
      Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-08 12:02 -0500
        Re: keeping files on an external drive Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-11-08 17:31 +0000
        Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-09 08:03 +1300
          Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 14:22 -0500
      Re: keeping files on an external drive "J.Albert" <j.albert@nowhere.net> - 2018-11-09 22:29 -0500
    Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-08 16:08 +0000
      Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-08 12:27 -0500
        Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 12:44 -0500
          Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-08 23:38 +0000
            Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-12 02:30 -0500
              Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-12 21:57 +1300
                Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-12 22:14 +1300
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-12 12:55 +0000
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-13 19:52 +1300
                Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-12 12:51 +0000
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-13 19:52 +1300
                Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-12 12:19 -0500
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 12:31 -0500
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-12 22:41 +0000
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-13 15:10 -0500
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-13 12:24 -0800
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-13 17:11 -0500
                          Re: keeping files on an external drive Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-13 15:02 -0800
                            Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-14 00:41 -0500
                              Re: keeping files on an external drive Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-15 11:26 -0800
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-14 13:34 +1300
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-11-14 15:42 -0500
                          Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-15 12:04 +1300
                            Re: keeping files on an external drive JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-11-15 00:52 -0500
                              Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-15 22:24 +1300
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-14 04:57 +0000
          Re: keeping files on an external drive ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-11-08 21:17 -0600
            Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-09 18:29 +1300
              Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-09 02:24 -0500
                Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-10 09:37 +1300
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-11-09 16:26 -0600
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-09 22:57 +0000
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-10 13:55 +1300
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-10 00:21 -0500
              Re: keeping files on an external drive ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-11-09 16:28 -0600
                Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-10 13:58 +1300
                Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-10 01:20 +0000
                  Re: keeping files on an external drive Elden <usenet@moondog.org> - 2018-11-09 21:33 -0800
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-10 18:52 +1300
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-10 19:08 +1300
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-11-11 11:20 +1300
                          Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-11 17:49 +1300
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-10 19:07 +1300
                    Re: keeping files on an external drive nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-10 08:38 -0500
                      Re: keeping files on an external drive Elden <usenet@moondog.org> - 2018-11-10 08:41 -0800
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive J Burns <burns@nospam.com> - 2018-11-10 14:35 -0500
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-11-11 10:02 +1300
                        Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-11 07:22 +0000
        Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-08 20:25 +0000
      Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-08 23:24 +0000
        Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-09 15:14 +0000
          Re: keeping files on an external drive Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-11-09 15:30 +0000
            Re: keeping files on an external drive Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-11-09 17:12 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#119491

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/8/18 6:38 PM, Lewis wrote:
> > >> 128 gig is a bit tight.
> > 
> > > Very. My Applications folder is 160GB and while 60GB of that is World of
> > > Warcraft that I would not have on a laptop, it's still a lot of space.
> > 
> > Ben Lovejoy of 9 to 5 Mac meant to order his mini with 128 GB. By 
> > mistake, he ordered 256.
> 
> Are you talking about this review?
> 
> https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/10/review-2018-mac-mini-video/
> 
> It was written by Jeff Benjamin, not Ben Lovejoy.
> 
> > He plugged in a Samsung X5, and Blackmagic showed it to be vastly faster
> > than the internal SSD. It all stems from System 8's support for Firewire
> > and USB.
> 
> Um, what? System 8 has nothing to do with this review, there is no
> Firewire anywhere, USB is not relevant to this test.
> 
> The Samsung X5 was only 3% faster for read, but 42% faster for write.
> The better write speed is probably due to the X5 being higher capacity
> (at least 500 GB compared to 256 GB internal SSD).
> 
> It is a common pattern with SSDs in the same family that higher capacity
> models can write faster than lower capacity models. This is because
> flash memory is slower for writing than reading, higher capacity SSDs
> have more flash memory chips, and they are arranged in parallel so the
> greater number of chips means more data can be written at the same time.
> 
> Read doesn't benefit from the increased parallelism because the read
> speed of a single flash memory chip is usually fast enough to saturate
> the interface bus and/or controller.
> 
> My Mac Mini should be arriving tomorrow and will have a 512 GB internal
> SSD, so I'll be able to add another data point to the write speed
> comparison.

I missed it on first read, but the article includes a tweet from Paul
Haddad which lists the write speeds he observed for 2018 Mac Mini SSDs.

128 GB: ~600 MB/s
256 GB: ~1.3 GB/s (matching the 9to5Mac review model)
512 GB: ~1.9 GB/s (faster than the Samsung X5)
1 TB:   ~2.6 GB/s

2 TB is not mentioned but it is probably not much faster than 1 TB due
to bus speed limits, given read is about 2.5 GB/s for a 256 GB SSD.

This suggests the flash memory chip configuratons in the SSD are
something like this:

128 GB: 2 x 64 GB
256 GB: 4 x 64 GB, twice as many chips so twice as fast
512 GB: 4 x 128 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster
1 TB:   4 x 256 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119495

In message <1ny6ahq.1z0fbs313h6gvuN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 11/8/18 6:38 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> > >> 128 gig is a bit tight.
>> > 
>> > > Very. My Applications folder is 160GB and while 60GB of that is World of
>> > > Warcraft that I would not have on a laptop, it's still a lot of space.
>> > 
>> > Ben Lovejoy of 9 to 5 Mac meant to order his mini with 128 GB. By 
>> > mistake, he ordered 256.
>> 
>> Are you talking about this review?
>> 
>> https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/10/review-2018-mac-mini-video/
>> 
>> It was written by Jeff Benjamin, not Ben Lovejoy.
>> 
>> > He plugged in a Samsung X5, and Blackmagic showed it to be vastly faster
>> > than the internal SSD. It all stems from System 8's support for Firewire
>> > and USB.
>> 
>> Um, what? System 8 has nothing to do with this review, there is no
>> Firewire anywhere, USB is not relevant to this test.
>> 
>> The Samsung X5 was only 3% faster for read, but 42% faster for write.
>> The better write speed is probably due to the X5 being higher capacity
>> (at least 500 GB compared to 256 GB internal SSD).
>> 
>> It is a common pattern with SSDs in the same family that higher capacity
>> models can write faster than lower capacity models. This is because
>> flash memory is slower for writing than reading, higher capacity SSDs
>> have more flash memory chips, and they are arranged in parallel so the
>> greater number of chips means more data can be written at the same time.
>> 
>> Read doesn't benefit from the increased parallelism because the read
>> speed of a single flash memory chip is usually fast enough to saturate
>> the interface bus and/or controller.
>> 
>> My Mac Mini should be arriving tomorrow and will have a 512 GB internal
>> SSD, so I'll be able to add another data point to the write speed
>> comparison.

> I missed it on first read, but the article includes a tweet from Paul
> Haddad which lists the write speeds he observed for 2018 Mac Mini SSDs.

> 128 GB: ~600 MB/s
> 256 GB: ~1.3 GB/s (matching the 9to5Mac review model)
> 512 GB: ~1.9 GB/s (faster than the Samsung X5)
> 1 TB:   ~2.6 GB/s

This is probably because the drives are actually two SSDs linked
together by the T2, so the 128 is 2x84 and the 1TB is 2x512. This gives
greater speeds than a single SSD of the larger size and explains why the
512GB is much faster than the Samsung X5 external.

> 2 TB is not mentioned but it is probably not much faster than 1 TB due
> to bus speed limits, given read is about 2.5 GB/s for a 256 GB SSD.

> This suggests the flash memory chip configuratons in the SSD are
> something like this:

> 128 GB: 2 x 64 GB
> 256 GB: 4 x 64 GB, twice as many chips so twice as fast
> 512 GB: 4 x 128 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster
> 1 TB:   4 x 256 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster

I hadn't thought of the possibility of 4 SSDs as I suspect they are
using the same system they used in the iMac Pro, and thy specifically
mentioned that used two. But sure, that would make sense too.

Your numbers match up, so it seems likely.

-- 
National Socialism is not Socialism, any more than the Black Panthers
were actually cats. @jearl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119516

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1ny6ahq.1z0fbs313h6gvuN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> >> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Ben Lovejoy of 9 to 5 Mac meant to order his mini with 128 GB. By
> >> > mistake, he ordered 256.
> >> 
> >> Are you talking about this review?
> >> 
> >> https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/10/review-2018-mac-mini-video/
> >> 
> > I missed it on first read, but the article includes a tweet from Paul
> > Haddad which lists the write speeds he observed for 2018 Mac Mini SSDs.
> 
> > 128 GB: ~600 MB/s
> > 256 GB: ~1.3 GB/s (matching the 9to5Mac review model)
> > 512 GB: ~1.9 GB/s (faster than the Samsung X5)
> > 1 TB:   ~2.6 GB/s
> 
> This is probably because the drives are actually two SSDs linked
> together by the T2, so the 128 is 2x84 and the 1TB is 2x512. This gives
> greater speeds than a single SSD of the larger size and explains why the
> 512GB is much faster than the Samsung X5 external.
> 
> > 2 TB is not mentioned but it is probably not much faster than 1 TB due
> > to bus speed limits, given read is about 2.5 GB/s for a 256 GB SSD.
> 
> > This suggests the flash memory chip configuratons in the SSD are
> > something like this:
> 
> > 128 GB: 2 x 64 GB
> > 256 GB: 4 x 64 GB, twice as many chips so twice as fast
> > 512 GB: 4 x 128 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster
> > 1 TB:   4 x 256 GB, higher capacity, square geometry so sqrt(2) faster
> 
> I hadn't thought of the possibility of 4 SSDs as I suspect they are
> using the same system they used in the iMac Pro, and thy specifically
> mentioned that used two. But sure, that would make sense too.

They aren't separate SSDs. The T2 is the SSD controller, and it
interfaces directly with flash memory chips that are soldered to the
logic board, similar to the iPhone, iPad, etc.

See the iFixit teardown of a 128 GB model, step 8:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+mini+Late+2018+Teardown/115210#s221761

It shows four "Toshiba TSB3225V81199TWNA1 flash storage (128 GB total)"

I haven't managed to find details of that chip but there are four of
them, which suggests the 128 GB model has 4 x 32 GB.

The doubled speed of the 256 GB configuration suggests twice as many
chips but the iFixit teardown doesn't show any position to install more
chips on the top or underside of the logic board. That probably means
all capacities use four chips, with the capacity of the individual chips
doubling for each doubling in storage capacity.

Perhaps the 64 GB and higher capacity chips have internal stacking with
a second layer of flash memory, resulting in twice as many flash memory
blocks in the same 2D geometry for a doubling in write performance.

Going up to 128 GB and higher capacity chips, the same number of flash
memory cells are used but they are higher density. The capacity
increases in two dimensions but the interface can only access one
dimension in parallel, therefore the write speed increases by sqrt(2).

If anyone does a teardown of higher capacity models we may be able to
get some clues from the number and size of the chips, and their part
numbers.

Comparing with AppleInsider's less detailed teardown for RAM upgrade
instructions reveals an interesting point: the SSD flash memory chips
are normally covered by a black rectangular lid of some kind. iFixit has
it in their photo of removed parts but I didn't see it mentioned in the
accompanying text. (You can see it in step 6, at the leftmost edge of
the logic board, just in front of the lithium battery cover.)

> Your numbers match up, so it seems likely.

Now that my Mac Mini (with 512 GB storage) has arrived I can confirm
that Blackmagic Disk Speed Test reports speeds in the same ballpark as
the list above: 1842.7 MB/s write, 2638.0 MB/s read.
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119494

In message <1ny68jv.41v5k5qtlw3bN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> My Mac Mini should be arriving tomorrow and will have a 512 GB internal
> SSD, so I'll be able to add another data point to the write speed
> comparison.

I can't remember if you're a Plex user or not. If so, I am curious as to
how plex on a new mini handles serving 4K HDR content (in HEVC), as it
does a piss-poor job on all my machines, complaining the my 1Gbit
connection is too slow or that the server can't transcode (it is set to
send the file natively with no transcoding). These complaints pop up
every 2-3 minutes.


-- 
This above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119517

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1ny68jv.41v5k5qtlw3bN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > My Mac Mini should be arriving tomorrow and will have a 512 GB internal
> > SSD, so I'll be able to add another data point to the write speed
> > comparison.
> 
> I can't remember if you're a Plex user or not.

Not, sorry, but I could probably do a test if I can lay my hands on some
suitable content.

I haven't bothered digitizing my DVDs and Blu-rays.

> If so, I am curious as to how plex on a new mini handles serving 4K HDR
> content (in HEVC), as it does a piss-poor job on all my machines,
> complaining the my 1Gbit connection is too slow or that the server can't
> transcode (it is set to send the file natively with no transcoding). These
> complaints pop up every 2-3 minutes.

I don't have a 4K display but streaming 4K content to another computer
should provide a similar test.

I use EyeTV on my 2012 Mac Mini, with an EyeTV diversity, recording from
free to air terrestrial, which uses an H.264 variant that isn't playable
directly by iOS devices. It can be transcoded but that model does it
slower than real time so I don't bother. I've only noticed it getting up
to 1080i or 720p but haven't checked recently to see if they've started
using higher resolutions. Certainly not 4K.

I don't intend to use the 2018 Mini for this but I will at least do a
test with EyeTV to see how much better it performs at transcoding.
Probably needs new/updated software to take advantage of things like
HEVC with hardware support from the T2.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119499

On 11/12/18 3:57 AM, David Empson wrote:
> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> 

>> Ben Lovejoy of 9 to 5 Mac meant to order his mini with 128 GB. By
>> mistake, he ordered 256.
> 
> Are you talking about this review?
> 
> https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/10/review-2018-mac-mini-video/
> 
> It was written by Jeff Benjamin, not Ben Lovejoy.

Darn! This had to happen just when I thought I knew something really 
important. They fooled me when I went back to see who reviewed it!

https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/06/mac-mini-review/

In that connection, if I've stated here that Steve Martin is the Apple 
guy, I stand corrected. ;)

> 
>> He plugged in a Samsung X5, and Blackmagic showed it to be vastly faster
>> than the internal SSD. It all stems from System 8's support for Firewire
>> and USB.
> 
> Um, what? System 8 has nothing to do with this review, there is no
> Firewire anywhere, USB is not relevant to this test.

IIRC, SCSI was limited to 5 MB/s. System 8 introduced support for more 
modern protocols. I'll bet Gil Amelio told Steve Martin to stick to what 
he does best, which is of course banjo playing.

Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB 
connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.


> The Samsung X5 was only 3% faster for read, but 42% faster for write.
> The better write speed is probably due to the X5 being higher capacity
> (at least 500 GB compared to 256 GB internal SSD).

I don't know what got into me. When I looked at the video again, I saw 
that the speedometer showed that the Samsung was about 6% slower on read 
than the internal SSD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119500

In article <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns@nospam.com>
wrote:

> 
> IIRC, SCSI was limited to 5 MB/s.

originally, but that soon changed. some macs had internal 10mbyte/s
scsi busses and ultra-wide scsi was much faster, but required a card.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119505

In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB 
> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.

This is incoherent.

-- 
#27794 <Vellius> ... I wonder if the really nerdy Klingons learn how to
speak English

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119533

On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
> 
> This is incoherent.
> 
Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.

In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.

In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.

Is that coherent for you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119534

On 2018-11-13 12:10 PM, J Burns wrote:
> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>>
>> This is incoherent.
>>
> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
> 
> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
> 
> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
> 
> Is that coherent for you?

Still not.

Thunderbolt did not originate with nor was it developed from System 8.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119535

On 11/13/18 3:24 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 12:10 PM, J Burns wrote:
>> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>>>
>>> This is incoherent.
>>>
>> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
>>
>> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
>> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
>>
>> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
>> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
>>
>> Is that coherent for you?
> 
> Still not.
> 
> Thunderbolt did not originate with nor was it developed from System 8.

In 1909, the Wright Brothers sold a Flyer to the Army and trained 
pilots. In 1945, the P-80 was an offshoot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119536

On 2018-11-13 2:11 PM, J Burns wrote:
> On 11/13/18 3:24 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-11-13 12:10 PM, J Burns wrote:
>>> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>>>>
>>>> This is incoherent.
>>>>
>>> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
>>>
>>> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
>>> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
>>>
>>> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
>>> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
>>>
>>> Is that coherent for you?
>>
>> Still not.
>>
>> Thunderbolt did not originate with nor was it developed from System 8.
> 
> In 1909, the Wright Brothers sold a Flyer to the Army and trained 
> pilots. In 1945, the P-80 was an offshoot.

But both the Flyer and the P-80 were essentially the same thing: fixed 
wing heavier-than-air flying vehicles.

Thunderbolt is a computer interface technology; essentially hardware and 
firmware.

System 8 is software. No amount of improving OS 8 on its own would ever 
let you plug in an external drive using Thunderbolt or any other 
interface technology. Nor was OS 8 in any way necessary to the 
development of Thunderbolt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119542

On 11/13/18 6:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 2:11 PM, J Burns wrote:
>> On 11/13/18 3:24 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-11-13 12:10 PM, J Burns wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>>>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
>>>>
>>>> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
>>>> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
>>>>
>>>> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
>>>> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
>>>>
>>>> Is that coherent for you?
>>>
>>> Still not.
>>>
>>> Thunderbolt did not originate with nor was it developed from System 8.
>>
>> In 1909, the Wright Brothers sold a Flyer to the Army and trained 
>> pilots. In 1945, the P-80 was an offshoot.
> 
> But both the Flyer and the P-80 were essentially the same thing: fixed 
> wing heavier-than-air flying vehicles.
> 
> Thunderbolt is a computer interface technology; essentially hardware and 
> firmware.


The Army required little of the Wright Flyer except that it carry two 
men at 40 mph. The Army could have put it in a museum or hired civilian 
pilots as scouts or messengers. As hardware, it would not have led to 
the P-80.

The Wrights provided support by training pilots. The existence of a 
corps of pilots has made all kinds of developments possible.

Under System 7, my computer had 7 ports of 5 types. The need to match 
what I had, limited my selection of peripherals, and I usually had to 
pay more. Maybe I could have gotten a USB PCI card and driver, but 
without OS support, I had no confidence that a device would work.

Along with System 8.1, Apple brought out the iMac, the first computer 
with no peripheral ports except USB. Without 8.1 support, there would 
have been a lot of unhappy campers. Apple's abandonment of legacy ports 
got the ball rolling for USB. Subsequent USB protocols were offshoots.

Likewise, a disk manufacturer and consumers could be confident that 
Firewire would work because the Mac OS supported it.

> 
> System 8 is software. No amount of improving OS 8 on its own would ever 
> let you plug in an external drive using Thunderbolt or any other 
> interface technology. Nor was OS 8 in any way necessary to the 
> development of Thunderbolt.

No amount of pilot training on its own would ever let you launch a 
ballistic missile, but the successes of manned aircraft created a demand 
in the military and Congress, besides an aeronautical knowledge base.

Remember the Pippin? The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh? The 16-pound 
Macintosh Portable? The Apple III? The Newton? Thunderbolt was also a 
gamble. Thunderbolt devices had to be available at a price Mac owners 
were willing to pay. I don't know what except Firewire could have shown 
there was a demand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119563

On 2018-11-13 9:41 PM, J Burns wrote:
> On 11/13/18 6:02 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-11-13 2:11 PM, J Burns wrote:
>>> On 11/13/18 3:24 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-11-13 12:10 PM, J Burns wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>>>>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is incoherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
>>>>> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
>>>>>
>>>>> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 
>>>>> 3.1, Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that coherent for you?
>>>>
>>>> Still not.
>>>>
>>>> Thunderbolt did not originate with nor was it developed from System 8.
>>>
>>> In 1909, the Wright Brothers sold a Flyer to the Army and trained 
>>> pilots. In 1945, the P-80 was an offshoot.
>>
>> But both the Flyer and the P-80 were essentially the same thing: fixed 
>> wing heavier-than-air flying vehicles.
>>
>> Thunderbolt is a computer interface technology; essentially hardware 
>> and firmware.
> 

I'm sorry, but everything below is just so much gibberish.

Thunderbolt—a hardware connection interface—is in no way an offshoot of 
any OS.

> 
> The Army required little of the Wright Flyer except that it carry two 
> men at 40 mph. The Army could have put it in a museum or hired civilian 
> pilots as scouts or messengers. As hardware, it would not have led to 
> the P-80.
> 
> The Wrights provided support by training pilots. The existence of a 
> corps of pilots has made all kinds of developments possible.
> 
> Under System 7, my computer had 7 ports of 5 types. The need to match 
> what I had, limited my selection of peripherals, and I usually had to 
> pay more. Maybe I could have gotten a USB PCI card and driver, but 
> without OS support, I had no confidence that a device would work.
> 
> Along with System 8.1, Apple brought out the iMac, the first computer 
> with no peripheral ports except USB. Without 8.1 support, there would 
> have been a lot of unhappy campers. Apple's abandonment of legacy ports 
> got the ball rolling for USB. Subsequent USB protocols were offshoots.
> 
> Likewise, a disk manufacturer and consumers could be confident that 
> Firewire would work because the Mac OS supported it.
> 
>>
>> System 8 is software. No amount of improving OS 8 on its own would 
>> ever let you plug in an external drive using Thunderbolt or any other 
>> interface technology. Nor was OS 8 in any way necessary to the 
>> development of Thunderbolt.
> 
> No amount of pilot training on its own would ever let you launch a 
> ballistic missile, but the successes of manned aircraft created a demand 
> in the military and Congress, besides an aeronautical knowledge base.
> 
> Remember the Pippin? The Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh? The 16-pound 
> Macintosh Portable? The Apple III? The Newton? Thunderbolt was also a 
> gamble. Thunderbolt devices had to be available at a price Mac owners 
> were willing to pay. I don't know what except Firewire could have shown 
> there was a demand.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119539

J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
> > In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
> >> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
> > 
> > This is incoherent.
> > 
> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.
> 
> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.
> 
> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.
> 
> Is that coherent for you?

No.

Mac OS 8.x happens to be where Apple first released support for USB and
Firewire.

Mac OS 8.x and 9.x support for USB and Firewire was a dead end: Mac OS X
had a completely different driver architecture so needed different
implementations of both. Given the timeline this was probably done
around the same time as Apple added support in Mac OS 8.x.

A new hardware interface such as Thunderbolt cannot be an "offshoot" of
a software version where support for earlier hardware interfaces was
implemented.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119544

On 2018-11-13 19:34, David Empson wrote:

> A new hardware interface such as Thunderbolt cannot be an "offshoot" of
> a software version where support for earlier hardware interfaces was
> implemented.

Digital developped DSSI which was an offshoot of SCSI-1 but with
performance additions and more importantly, ability to have multiple
hosts. (so a cluster of VAXes could access the same disks via the DSSI
bus).  It was electrically compatible with SCSI so can be considered an
offshoot of SCSI even though the software was totally different to
support multiple masters (hosts controllers) and coordinate access etc.

So it it is withitn realm of possible to think of many of the Apple
protocols having evolved from earlier protocols even if software
implementation was quite different because they also moved to a platform
that required totally different driver architecture.

As such, the question then becomes: Does Thunderbolt have any roots in
USB protocol ?

And when one considers newer machines where you can plug in USB-3 or
Thunderbolt, does the plug electrically differentiate the two to present
 2 "plugs" to the host system (and thus 2 totally different drivers -
similar to plugs that support both analogye sony sound plugs or TOSlink
optical sound).

Or did USB-3 evolve to incorporate the features of Thunderbolt such that
when you plug in a thunderbolt disk or display, it is seen as a USB-3
device by the host and handled by the USB drivers ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119546

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2018-11-13 19:34, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > A new hardware interface such as Thunderbolt cannot be an "offshoot" of
> > a software version where support for earlier hardware interfaces was
> > implemented.
> 
> Digital developped DSSI which was an offshoot of SCSI-1 but with
> performance additions and more importantly, ability to have multiple
> hosts. (so a cluster of VAXes could access the same disks via the DSSI
> bus).  It was electrically compatible with SCSI so can be considered an
> offshoot of SCSI even though the software was totally different to
> support multiple masters (hosts controllers) and coordinate access etc.
> 
> So it it is withitn realm of possible to think of many of the Apple
> protocols having evolved from earlier protocols even if software
> implementation was quite different because they also moved to a platform
> that required totally different driver architecture.

That still doesn't make a hardware interface an offshoot of a software
implementation.

> As such, the question then becomes: Does Thunderbolt have any roots in
> USB protocol ?

No.

Thunderbolt, Firewire and USB have independent origins and the
underlying mechanisms and protocols are significantly different.

They only get similar (in some areas) at the high level, when dealing
with concepts like storage devices, which often use similar protocols
such as SCSI derivatives on top of completely different lower level
protocols.

USB was a new development which unified many single-function ports,
probably borrowing features from ACCESS.bus (which didn't get very far),
which was in turn based on the Philips I-squared-C internal serial bus.
ACCESS.bus borrowed ideas from Apple Desktop Bus.

Firewire was modelled on SCSI but with a different physical interface.

Thunderbolt is a combination of the PCI Express system bus and
DisplayPort.

Thunderbolt 3 overlaps somewhat with USB because it adopts the USB-C
connector and is implemented as a USB-C alternate protocol. This means
USB is involved in the initial negotiation, but after that stage
Thunderbolt has nothing to do with USB protocols.

> And when one considers newer machines where you can plug in USB-3 or
> Thunderbolt, does the plug electrically differentiate the two to present
>  2 "plugs" to the host system (and thus 2 totally different drivers -
> similar to plugs that support both analogye sony sound plugs or TOSlink
> optical sound).

Thunderbolt 3 is one of several alternate protocols for USB type-C.
Other examples include DisplayPort, HDMI and analog audio. Which ones
are supported varies considerably depending on the host and peripheral.

When you plug a device into a USB-C port, the two devices negotiate
whether the superspeed lanes in the connector will be used for USB 3.1
or an alternate protocol. The superspeed lanes can be subdivided between
USB 3.1 and alternate protocols so it is possible to have a mixture
(with less bandwidth available for both).

In Thunderbolt's case, once it has been negotiated, it takes over the
superspeed lanes and then ignores the USB side of the interface.
Subsequent Thunderbolt communication is via PCI Express, i.e. the
peripheral is mapped into the address space of the host, similar to how
a PCI or PCI Express card is implemented.

For example, a Thunderbolt GPU would allow the host CPU to directly
address the GPU's control registers and its memory. The only differences
from an internal PCI Express GPU would be the number of lanes therefore
data bandwdith (Thunderbolt 3 provides 4 lanes of PCI Express 3.0;
internal GPUs may use up to 16 lanes), plus the external GPU can
potentially be removed and attached while the system is running.

A Thunderbolt storage device would probably have a memory mapped
controller inside the peripheral, which then deals with accessing the
storage.

If you plugged in a USB-C peripheral which used USB 3.1 (gen 1 or 2)
then USB 3.1 superspeed and USB protocols would be used to communicate
with the device, from the USB 3.1 controller inside the computer's
Thunderbolt interface chip.

Different drivers would be involved (at low levels) for otherwise
similar USB and Thunderbolt peripherals (e.g. storage devices).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119548

On 2018-11-14 18:04, David Empson wrote:

> When you plug a device into a USB-C port, the two devices negotiate
> whether the superspeed lanes in the connector will be used for USB 3.1
> or an alternate protocol. The superspeed lanes can be subdivided between
> USB 3.1 and alternate protocols so it is possible to have a mixture
> (with less bandwidth available for both).

Ok, so after negotiation, the port presents itself as a <x> hardware
(when X can be USB, Thiunderbolt, Displayport etc) at which point the
relevant software driver is attached to that device?

This means that Thunderbolt and USB remain totally separate protocols
using different drivers at the OS level even if they share the same plug
format.

Does USB-C standard require the plug support any additioanl non-USB
protocols? aka, if Microsoft invented SlowBolt tomorrow, and added the
drivers in Windows, would an existing PC with USB-C support it, or would
only future hardware be able to support SlowBolt ?

In other words, do vanilla PCs  with a USB-C plug have hardware support
for Apple's Thunderbolt and DisplayPort even if Windows doesn't have the
required drivers for it ?

Also from your description, after negotiation, it sure looks like
totally different OS level drivers are used depending on whether you
plugged in a USB , Thunderbolt or Display Port cable into the port so
they would be totally unrelated at the OS software level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119550

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2018-11-14 18:04, David Empson wrote:
> 
> > When you plug a device into a USB-C port, the two devices negotiate
> > whether the superspeed lanes in the connector will be used for USB 3.1
> > or an alternate protocol. The superspeed lanes can be subdivided between
> > USB 3.1 and alternate protocols so it is possible to have a mixture
> > (with less bandwidth available for both).
> 
> Ok, so after negotiation, the port presents itself as a <x> hardware
> (when X can be USB, Thiunderbolt, Displayport etc) at which point the
> relevant software driver is attached to that device?

After negotiation, the superspeed lanes are connected to the
approrpriate hardware bus inside the computer (e.g. Thunderbolt 3 or
DisplayPort). The driver for that bus sees it has gone active so starts
doing its negotiation and identification sequences, like it would if you
had plugged something into a native version of the same port.

While this is going on, the port is still able to act as a USB 2.0
interface, since the USB 2.0 signals are carried on separate pins.

> This means that Thunderbolt and USB remain totally separate protocols
> using different drivers at the OS level even if they share the same plug
> format.

Yes.

> Does USB-C standard require the plug support any additioanl non-USB
> protocols? aka, if Microsoft invented SlowBolt tomorrow, and added the
> drivers in Windows, would an existing PC with USB-C support it, or would
> only future hardware be able to support SlowBolt ?

Only future hardware.

USB-C is a mess: a port can support any subset of the features and
alternate modes. The only one that is required is USB 2.0. Power
input/output capabilities also vary. Documentation is important.

USB-C cables are also a mess due to having varying capabilities e.g.
whether or not the superspeed wires are present (without them, it is a
USB 2.0 cable), the maximum speed they can carry (some might only cope
with USB 3.1 gen 1, not gen 2 and certainly not Thunderbolt), and how
much power they can carry.

Most of the USB-C ports on Macs are Thunderbolt 3, which has a
reasonably consistent set of features (except for the number and type of
displays which can be connected, which is affected by DisplayPort
version and GPU capabilities; power capabilities also vary; maximum
Thunderbolt throughput also varies between ports on some models).

The exceptions are the 2015 and later MacBook (also the 2018 iPad Pro),
which are not Thunderbolt ports. They support USB 3.1 gen 2 and
DisplayPort, again with varying display and power capabilities.

Apple also used a USB-C port on the Apple TV (4th generation) but it is
only intended for diagnostic functions and development. The 4K (5th
generation) Apple TV has no USB port at all.

> In other words, do vanilla PCs  with a USB-C plug have hardware support
> for Apple's Thunderbolt and DisplayPort even if Windows doesn't have the
> required drivers for it ?

No. The hardware must have a Thunderbolt 3 controller to be able to
carry Thunderbolt over USB-C. Whether is supports DisplayPort or HDMI as
an alternate protocol also depends on the capability of the hardware.

In general, to support alterate protocol X, the computer must have
hardware support for X including the ability to dynamically map it to
the USB-C port. It also needs software support for X.

A USB-C port on a Windows PC might just support USB 2.0 and earlier, or
USB 3.1 gen 1 and earlier, or USB 3.1 gen 2 and earlier, without
supporting any alternate modes.

> Also from your description, after negotiation, it sure looks like
> totally different OS level drivers are used depending on whether you
> plugged in a USB , Thunderbolt or Display Port cable into the port so
> they would be totally unrelated at the OS software level.

Correct.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119541

In message <psfb3a$um7$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/18 5:41 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <psccmp$qu0$1@dont-email.me> J Burns <burns@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Intel demonstrated Light Peak with a Mac Pro logic board and USB
>>> connectors. Thus Thunderbolt 3 is an offshoot of System 8.
>> 
>> This is incoherent.
>> 
> Offshoot: a thing that originated or developed from something else.

> In January, 1998, System 8.1 came out with support for USB 1.  In 
> October, System 8.5 added support for Firewire.

> In time, Apple introduced computers with USB 2.0, USB 3.0., USB 3.1, 
> Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, Thunderbolt 2, and Thunderbolt 3.

> Is that coherent for you?

Not really. You are implying a connection between macOS 8 and USB that
does not exist.


-- 
Sarah, age 18, says "man, once you go Crayola you can't go back."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web