Is it possible that a computer could read/write large project data more quickly via a USB 3.0 external SSD than it can on an old fashioned internal HDD?
> Is it possible that a computer could read/write large project data more quickly via a USB 3.0 external SSD than it can on an old fashioned internal HDD?
maybe but I doubt it, USB 3.0 is not all that fast. Install the SSD in the box
If you're looking for fast and external you'll want to look at drives with an eSATA interface. This is the external version SATA interface that most internal drives use these days. Speed wise, much depends on the specs of the specific drive that you select. Read speeds on SSD's are fast, writes are much slower and the ratio of Read/Write speed varies from drive to drive. I haven't taken the time to compare HDD write speeds to SSD write speeds.
> Is it possible that a computer could read/write large project data more quickly via a USB 3.0 external SSD than it can on an old fashioned internal HDD?
The comparison given the configuration you propose is kind of not fare.
No doubt the SSD "should dam well better be" faster than the HDD.
But I do seriously doubt the speed differential would be enough to overcome the USB's lesser speed than an internal data bus given the same amount of data to transfer.
I suppose if one were to get super-picky about it, also be sure the file on both devices has absolutely ZERO fragmentation so that neither drive needs to spend "time" getting it all together for transfer. However, I hope by now they have figured out how to make that process asynchronous so it's not an issue any longer. (I would bet they have.)
According to the USB 3.x spec, the "nominal" transfer rate is 5 Gbits/sec in "SuperSpeed" mode. 4 Gbits/sec is more likely to be expected. Again, according to the specs.
Big LiDAR jobs. I was thinking it would help if the database was on the SSD?
Are you using a "real" database server like MS SQL Server, Oracle or just some gi-mungus file full of LiDAR data? If you are just going to use this thing as a repository for all this data and simply access it from some program, I would say keep it on the internal bus.
If you are using a "real data base server" be sure that software is loaded and running from the internal drive. DB server want to load and unload their own services as needed so that would be once less hit on the bus - and, that's about as much as I know about that. 😉
If this data is static (i.e. not worried about write speeds), that might be something to consider. I am not really sure about all this stuff anymore, but in the old days our rule of thumb on any machine, PC, super-mini, main-frame, etc. was to keep the data as close to the processor as physically possible. Keep the distance low as you can.
Running Leica cyclone. Real database.
You are limiting yourself with that because most modern computers run at 6 gigs per second (SATA 3). It would be best to have another HDD drive connected internally. Most motherboards have at least 2 hookups for additional drives. I would recommend having another internal drive. USB 3.0 is fast, but not as fast as SATA.
The ideal setup is to have two Raided SSDs...but second best is to have a SSD with your OS and programs installed, then have a 7200 RMP drive (larger) as your storage drive.