Sans Digital MS2C1 Drive Enclosure Review

Benchmarks

For benchmark testing, I used HD Tach 3 and ATTO Disk Benchmark 2.36 on Windows XP Pro SP2, running on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe and AMD Athlon 3000+ Barton, and using two Western Digital Caviar RE WD3200SD (RAID-optimized 320GB, 8MB cache SATA I, 7200RPM) drives. Both the USB 2.0 and FireWire 400 interfaces will be tested. Unfortunately, there was no equipment readily available to test the FireWire 800 connection for this review.

First up: HD Tach 3. In this test, read time and bandwidth will each be tested with USB 2.0 and FireWire 400, from both the partition under RAID 0, and the individual drives under JBOD.

This second round of benchmarks used ATTO Disk Benchmark 2.36, which offers both read and write speeds. This benchmark is done in the same manner as before with the USB 2.0 and FireWire 400 interfaces, both under the RAID 0 and JBOD modes.

To determine how accessing both drives at the same time impacts performance with JBOD, here’s how HD Tach 3’s read benchmark turned out. Notice that although the initial burst speed is the same as before, the sustained average read and access time were halved (as expected).

Similar to the HD Tach 3 benchmark just above, here’s how the enclosure did with both reading and writing using ATTO Disk Benchmark 2.36:

While the USB 2.0 tests sustained an even speed between the two drives; under FireWire 400, the results seemed to be slightly skewed towards HDD0 (the upper drive in the enclosure). On top of that, the read and write speeds under FireWire 400 were much more erratic, compared to the consistent USB 2.0 transfer speed, which deviated little from the average. Looking at the numbers, USB 2.0 maintained a constant 14 MB/s, while FireWire 400 jumped from 14 MB/s all the way up to 41 MB/s and everything in between.

Finally, remember that all of these are synthetic benchmarks which may or may not be accurate, and will probably not reflect real-world performance. Also note that non-Western Digital RE drives may show a slightly lower performance benchmark when compared to Western Digital’s RE hard drives under RAID 0 in this drive enclosure, simply because RE drives are optimized to give a performance boost when used in RAID.

Summary

Pros:

• Easy to install & use on Win2000, XP and OSX
• Runs quiet & cool
• Small, compact form factor
• Rubber feet that don’t scratch surfaces
• Sturdy, durable outer casing
• Simple, easy-to-use backup software included

Cons:

• FireWire 400 cable not included
• Setup instructions get lost in multi-language paragraphs/bullet points
• Drive tray rails could be sturdier
• A little bit on the expensive side

Conclusion

Overall, this drive enclosure proved to be a sturdy and well-performing unit. But it is still expected that the question arises, “Why buy the MS2C1 over a cheaper single-drive enclosure?”

The cost of a good single-drive enclosure runs about $40-$50. So, comparatively speaking, you will be spending about $80-$100 on two hard drive enclosures, versus about $210 for a single enclosure supporting two drives and RAID 0. So yes, the price of the MS2C1 is definitely a deterring factor.

Using two separate enclosures, each one can be operated simultaneously while maintaining constant transfer speeds, unlike the MS2C1 when under JBOD mode. However, using RAID 0 shows no loss in performance in that regard because the two drives are seen as and operate as one over the USB/FireWire interface.

In the end, it comes down to how much you are willing to spend; whether or not it’s less expensive to buy two smaller drives than one large one to attain the same capacity (two small drives for RAID 0 vs. a single large drive for a single-drive enclosure). Perhaps you need the largest partition you can get with the smallest amount of desk space (1.5TB maximum with the MS2C1, and 750GB maximum with an individual drive).

Ultimately, the choice is entirely up to you, but if you do choose to go with the MS2C1, it has certainly proven itself here as a solid (albeit expensive) product in this review.