backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by atlmann10.. on Oct 27 at 12:07 AM

Delay will greatly impact USB 3.0 adoption in 2010

When it comes to backing up large amounts of data, many computer users will agree that USB 2.0 speeds are simply not fast enough. This has led to eSATA and other connectivity solutions that can provide more bandwidth than USB 2.0 is capable of for the storage industry.

Those looking forward to the wide rollout of USB 3.0 will be saddened to hear that the specification has been dealt a setback. This summer, expectations were that USB 3.0 devices and computers supporting USB 3.0 would be available before 2010.

A source at a top-tier computer maker has confirmed to EETimes that USB 3.0 support in key Intel chipsets has been postponed until 2011. Support for USB 3.0 was expected to show up in early 2010 for Intel chipsets. The same top-tier PC maker source also told EETimes that wireless USB was effectively dead. Rather than moving to wireless USB, which has had many supporting startups and interest groups close up shop, the industry buzz is now focusing on 60 GHz technology.

With Intel not offering wide support for USB 3.0 in its chipsets in 2010, adoption of the specification will reportedly be limited to a few high-end graphics workstations and consumer PCs. The makers of these systems will be forced to buy discrete host controllers for their boards, which will make the parts high-cost items.

The unnamed source added, "It's hard to commit to an emerging technology like this (USB 3.0) when the key silicon enablers are not making it a priority. You get into a chicken-and-egg situation." USB 3.0 "won't get real traction until it gets integrated in the chip sets," said the source.

As for why USB 3.0 was postponed after a big showing at IDF, the source told EETimes, "Tech and strategy groups (at Intel) are not always aligned with the product development teams that are in the mode of trying to make revenue and prioritize what to integrate."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just wanted to know
By jonmcc33 on 10/22/2009 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
The people that use USB for backup outweigh those that use network (gigabit) by about 100,000 to 1. Well, at least home users. NAS boxes are still pricey and most people would be oblivious on how to even connect it to their network...as evident of how many people running unsecured wireless networks or wireless with WEP encryption.

I'm looking forward to USB 3.0 as eSATA has never been appealing to me. In the end I might end up getting a PCIe USB 3.0 card instead if they aren't going to integrate them into chipsets yet.


RE: Just wanted to know
By Silverel on 10/22/2009 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 3
This nicest thing about using USB/Sata backups over a network backup is the amount of safety involved. Your external drive is no longer plugged into anything, used very sparesly, and can be locked up in a fireproof safe. There's 0 chance for data corruption in a fire-proof safe while disconnected from the world. Leave that NAS running 24/7 (like most do), and relative chances are infinitely higher for loss.

That being said, I just give my stuff to Google. If they run into massive data corruption, the whole internet is screwed anyway.


RE: Just wanted to know
By mindless1 on 10/25/2009 5:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
You have that totally, totally backwards. External drives are far more prone to corruption from a PC OS crash/disconnect cache loss on USB and SATA, connecting to the PC means potential infection from malware because the client system has higher exposure rate than a server only accessible on the lan rather than wan, external power supplies are much lower quality on average than internal ones.

There was even a very high infection rate recently from a virus that specifically targets removable storage.

Trust me on this, my 10 year old fileserver has never lost a bit of data but I constantly hear of external drives failing.

Maybe the worse possible option is giving it to someone else online, then you have no control at all over what happens and recent news of a certain storage provider losing massive data should remind of this.

No, the best storage isn't some tacked-on cheap external enclosure, it is an independent full system build from and coded for the exact purpose. Of course that also means RAID redundancy and if you are serious about the potential for fire don't bother with the fireproof safe, your hard drive's PCB is soldered together (fire safe cannot guarantee contents stay below that melting point or the actual HDD max storage spec which is even lower!) and a safe can't keep it cool enough, you then need to maintain an off-site backup of the on-site file server.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki