by Andrey Kuznetcov
07/04/2005 | 07:26 AM
Removable hard disk drive enclosures that are installed into the system case can’t help in all cases, even though they are so popular among the users. They are just one possible solution if you need to keep your data by yourself and to be sure no one is going to access it without your knowing. HDD enclosures are good when the user works on one and the same computer.
Sometimes, however, you have to move a large amount of information stored on a hard disk drive to a computer which you haven’t seen before and you are not sure if you’ll be able to attach the drive to the mainboard’s onboard connectors. In this case you may want to use an external container that connects to the computer via one of the widespread peripheral interfaces (USB 2.0 or FireWire).
We are regularly reviewing such devices, and today we’ve got two containers from ST Lab and ViPowER to discuss.
Let’s first examine the hard disk drive enclosure from ST Lab. Having a metal case with thick, robust panels, this thing looks pretty solid. The container can be dismantled by unfastening four screws on the top and bottom that can act as legs if necessary. There are vent holes in each of the longer side panels. The hard disk drive is to be put inside through one of the shorter side panels on which there is also a LED indicator. The installed 3.5” hard disk drive is fastened right to the side panels of the case through two holes on either side. Thus, the working device becomes an integral whole with the enclosure.
This solution also helps to cool the working drive since the side panels act as a heat-spreader, enlarging the heatsink area. A Power switch, a USB port and a power connector are located on one of the smaller side panels. This container uses a Genesys GL811E USB 2.0 controller. The 8bit/16bit PIO mode, 160-bit Multiword DMA mode and UltraDMA mode are supported. The power supply supports input voltages from 100 to 240VAC and outputs 12VDC. The dimensions of the container are 250x116x33.5mm. The accessories to the device include an external power supply with a cable, a USB cable, a miniature CD with drivers and utilities, a stand to position the device upright, and a user’s manual.
I should also note that three container models based on this case are available. They differ in the interface. Besides the reviewed model, there are models that besides USB 2.0 also support Serial ATA and FireWire interfaces. They come with appropriate interface cables and have different numbers in their model names (S-121 and S-111). By the way, the snapshots show you the accessories to the SATA-supporting model.
The average retail price of this enclosure is $55.
The second hard disk drive enclosure I’m going to review today is made of a more traditional material – it is plastic of the grey color of aluminum. Removing the top panel you can see that the design is strengthened by means of metallic inserts intended for installation and fastening of the hard disk drive. The rear panel is metallic, too. On the inside, a PCB is attached to this panel. On the outer side of this panel there are a power switch, a power connector, and a connector for the so-called SmartCABLE which is the exclusive feature of the VP-9054V Smart Family of HDD containers. These products all use the same VP-9054 container, but are equipped with different “smart” cables. The supported interface varies accordingly. In our case we had a VP-9208 cable that supports the USB 2.0 interface. The cables are cleverly designed with two latches on the sides of the connector for better contact. You can take a look at the screenshot above to see possible shipment versions of this enclosure.
On the front panel of the container, there is an activity LED and a miniature fan. Unfortunately, despite the special cooling device, there are no vents in the other panels. This worsens airflows and heat removal. This enclosure can be positioned vertically, too. The dimensions of the device are 225x130x36mm. The accessories to the enclosure include a power adapter with a cable, a USB cable, a stand, mounting screws, a CD with drivers and utilities, an installation guide, and a user’s manual.
The average retail price of this device is $40.
To check out the real performance of the two enclosures we need a hard disk drive. So I took a Hitachi HDS722525VLAT80 whose potential performance is higher than the bandwidth of the USB 2.0 interface. So, the enclosure that this drive will have a better performance in will be better than the other one. I used WinBench 99 2.0 and FC-Test 1.0 to investigate the speed characteristics of the resulting external hard disk drives. The testbed was configured like follows:
Here are the data-transfer graphs produced by WinBench 99:
ST Lab S-101
ViPowER VP-9258V
Comparing these two diagrams you can see that the efficiency of the interface implemented in the ViPowER is better: its data-transfer graph goes higher than the competitor’s graph. There’s also another sign: the steps at the end of the straight line begin earlier with the ST Lab container.
Now let us compare the performance of the hard disk drive in these two enclosures as expressed in WinMarks. When the entire capacity of the drive was formatted in FAT32, the drive performed almost identically in both enclosures. The small difference in the two Business WinMark scores lies in the measurement error range.
The second diagram reflects the performance of the drive when 32 gigabytes of its space was formatted. In this case the ST Lab enclosure enjoys a minimal advantage over its opponent. But again we can note that the difference between the two containers is really negligible.
Now let’s switch to NTFS. When the entire capacity of the drive is used, the ST Lab enclosure has a considerable advantage. The hard drive works faster in this container.
The reduction of the partition size to 32 gigabytes doesn’t lead to any changes: the drive in the ST Lab rack turns in a considerably higher WinMark score.
Next I’m going to verify the results of WinBench 99 by running FC-Test that can determine the real-life speed characteristics of hard disk drives. This benchmarking tool measures the time it takes to create (i.e. to write), to read and to copy a few sets of files that differ in the size and number of files included. Knowing this time we can calculate the speed of the drive. The Windows and Programs patterns consist of many smaller files, while the other three patterns include a few larger files. Two 32GB partitions are created on the drive for the copy operations and the file patterns are first copied within the same partition (copy near) and then from one partition to another (copy far).
FAT32 comes first. The diagram of the file creation (i.e. write) speed suggests that the hard drive worked faster in the ViPowER enclosure. The advantage of this container was especially conspicuous when the drive was processing the two patterns with small-size files.
This diagram shows you the read speed of the drive in the two containers. Once again, it is faster in all five patterns when works in the enclosure from ViPowER.
When copying files within the same partition, we can again see the higher efficiency of the ViPowER enclosure, which is simply overwhelming in the two patterns that include many smaller files.
The last diagram represents the speed of copying files from one partition to another, and again the ViPowER container claims victory. Our hard disk drive is always faster when installed in this enclosure.
Switching to NTFS, we see that ViPowER wins three patterns out of five when creating (writing) files. These are the patterns that consist of a few larger files. In the other two cases the drive shows a higher performance being installed in the ST Lab container.
The read speed diagram once again confirms that the ViPowER enclosure is preferable of the two. The drive in this container wins four patterns out of five.
When copying files within the same partition, the efficiency of the ViPowER enclosure is lower than that of its opponent. The performance of the hard disk drive installed in the ST Lab container is higher in three patterns out of five, especially in the two patterns that consist of smaller files.
The last diagram is about copying from one partition to another, and it is almost the same as in the previous case: the performance of the drive is higher three times out of five when it is installed in the ST Lab rack.
So what has come out of our attempt to compare two hard disk drive enclosures with the USB 2.0 interface between each other? It would be wrong to claim one of them is much better than another. For example, their results were very close in the classic WinBench 99 benchmark. In fact, the difference lay in the measurement error range when we used FAT32. In NTFS, however, the drive looked better in the ST Lab S-101 container.
But when I tested the enclosures in FAT32 using FC-Test, the VP-9258V container from ViPowER was clearly better, especially at writing and copying files. In NTFS the higher efficiency of the ViPowER showed up when the drive was processing small-size files.
I think it necessary to tell you about one problem I encountered during the tests. The ST Lab passed through them without a hitch, but the container from ViPowER with the drive installed hung up once. That hang-up seemed to be caused by overheat of the hard drive after long operation. So, the built-in fan may not be enough in some cases because there are no holes for the hot air to come out of the container, and the airflows inside the enclosure are weak. You should keep this in mind if you’re intending to use your hard drive in this container very actively.
I think that the product from ViPowER is preferable of the two reviewed enclosures just because of its lower price. But don’t forget my remark about the thermal properties of the VP-9258V.