tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post1819452324326748176..comments2023-10-07T15:46:10.198+08:00Comments on 麥客見聞: AirPort Extreme 上的 USB 2.0Johnny Chanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-77327255243077710782013-10-09T18:05:30.490+08:002013-10-09T18:05:30.490+08:00亂講一通
USB2.0是絕對不夠的
是篇誤導的文章
iphone wifi連接都可以下載到100M...亂講一通<br />USB2.0是絕對不夠的<br />是篇誤導的文章<br /><br />iphone wifi連接都可以下載到100MB/s以上了<br />usb2.0只能在旁邊陪笑臉Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-21951022265818977572013-09-10T22:10:07.322+08:002013-09-10T22:10:07.322+08:00用 Thunderbolt 又唔錯喎,如果用埋 Thunderbolt 2 就可同新 Mac Pro...用 Thunderbolt 又唔錯喎,如果用埋 Thunderbolt 2 就可同新 Mac Pro 睇齊,拖兩隻 SSD 都好。Johnny Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-50366761627201617572013-09-10T21:52:47.114+08:002013-09-10T21:52:47.114+08:00AE用USB2.0是不是適當,在本文提了錯誤的比較方式並指稱換USB3.0並不會比較快,這兩者之間並...AE用USB2.0是不是適當,在本文提了錯誤的比較方式並指稱換USB3.0並不會比較快,這兩者之間並無關聯性,亦無直接證據說明無法發揮USB3.0的實力。<br /><br />再提其他產品的比較資料來說USB3.0無法在router上發揮實力,這也無法佐證蘋果在自家產品上無法發揮USB3.0的實力;就像拿Android機器規格來比iPhone一樣,iPhone的spec常輸人一截,使用者體驗可不是如此。<br /><br />"這紿終是一隻 Router 而不是 NAS",沒錯,但這不代表我們不能期望蘋果給一個更好的方案,USB3.0、thunderbolt接口都是適當的期待,全文並不能支持"USB2.0已足夠應付所需"這個論點"。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-1015972106941933522013-09-10T17:30:40.549+08:002013-09-10T17:30:40.549+08:00cnet 有一個 D Link Router 測試,比較了 USB2/3 的差別。
http://...cnet 有一個 D Link Router 測試,比較了 USB2/3 的差別。<br /><br />http://reviews.cnet.com/routers/d-link-dir-868l/4505-3319_7-35768997-2.html<br /><br />When coupled with an external hard drive, the DIR-868L also offered excellent network storage data speed. Via a gigabit wired connection, with USB 3.0 function turned off, the router offered about 12MBps of network storage performance, for both writing and reading. When I enabled USB 3.0 functionality, which resulted in shorter range on the 2.4GHz band, the network storage speed didn't seem to improve much. This was expected, however, since , 12MBps is notably slower than the real-world speed of a USB 2.0 external hard drive (some 30MBps). This means there's basically no benefit in enabling USB 3.0 functionality with the DIR-868L.<br /><br />Nonetheless, 12MBps was among the fastest among all routers that offers this feature, and fast enough for general network-based storage needs.Johnny Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-11082301008417920202013-09-10T17:22:41.103+08:002013-09-10T17:22:41.103+08:00這紿終是一隻 Router 而不是 NAS,如果換了 USB 3.0,可能會有一點點幫助,以下是一隻...這紿終是一隻 Router 而不是 NAS,如果換了 USB 3.0,可能會有一點點幫助,以下是一隻配有 USB 3.0 的 Router 測試。<br />http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420689,00.aspJohnny Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-5574540573103302632013-09-10T13:22:07.334+08:002013-09-10T13:22:07.334+08:00您引用的圖表內有針對TC再外接USB2.0的硬碟效能,跟AE是不相上下的,所以不論是TC或AE,改用...您引用的圖表內有針對TC再外接USB2.0的硬碟效能,跟AE是不相上下的,所以不論是TC或AE,改用USB3.0絕對會對效能有幫助,而非您文內所稱的"給用家一個錯誤訊息,以為 AirDisk 讀寫速度會有倍數升級"。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-75461234312555354392013-09-10T12:57:54.053+08:002013-09-10T12:57:54.053+08:00跟Time Capsule相比是不公平的競爭,TC是內置硬碟走SATA通道,跟USB2.0完全無關,...跟Time Capsule相比是不公平的競爭,TC是內置硬碟走SATA通道,跟USB2.0完全無關,沒有「突破USB2.0限制」這情況發生,它的速度是受限於SATA頻寬及實體硬碟的讀寫速度,所以兩者比較是無意義的。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-10907237698741192292013-09-10T12:26:57.968+08:002013-09-10T12:26:57.968+08:00謝謝指教。
理論上 Gigabit Ethernet 有 1000Mb/s,即是 125MB/s,...謝謝指教。<br /><br />理論上 Gigabit Ethernet 有 1000Mb/s,即是 125MB/s,貴公司的設備能去到 110MB/s 讀寫,是很不錯的了。<br /><br />文中的測試提到,在 Gigabit Ethernet 下,Time Capsule 可超過 80MB/s 速度,確是突破了 USB 2.0 的限制;而這裡說的 USB 2.0 限制,是針對 AirPort Extreme 上的 USB 2.0,可能是因為零件或控制晶片所限,所以只能達到一個比較低的速度,所以換上 USB 3.0 後,也未必會有很大改善。Johnny Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-46344399983622776822013-09-10T10:55:35.666+08:002013-09-10T10:55:35.666+08:00"如果 USB 2.0 已足夠應付 Gigabit Ethernet 及 802.11ac..."如果 USB 2.0 已足夠應付 Gigabit Ethernet 及 802.11ac 所需速度的話,那麼 Apple 為甚麼要使用「更快」的 USB 3.0 呢?改用 USB 3.0 的話,會不會給用家一個錯誤訊息,以為 AirDisk 讀寫速度會有倍數升級呢?"<br /><br />我們辦公室內經由Gigabit Ethernet連結到Server使用thunderbolt的外接裝置,讀寫可以到110MB/s,所以USB 2.0絕對不是"已足夠應付Gigabit Ethernet所需速度"的理由。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-84189090733418014232013-09-09T23:11:59.320+08:002013-09-09T23:11:59.320+08:00對,謝謝提點。對,謝謝提點。Johnny Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478132647915128679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20086332.post-57918805749164397582013-09-09T23:09:08.829+08:002013-09-09T23:09:08.829+08:00是不是打多了個 “只” 字?
最後提醒大家,Apple 已不再只支援以 AirPort Extre...是不是打多了個 “只” 字?<br /><br />最後提醒大家,Apple 已不再只支援以 AirPort Extreme 結合 USB 硬碟作為 Time Machine 備份硬碟;如果你真的想要一台讀寫速度較快的網絡硬碟,我強烈建議你多花幾百元、購買內置硬碟的 Time Capsule,放棄 AirPort Extreme 結合 USB AirDisk 的方案。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com