No USB3 on new Extreme???

USB 3.0 would not be as slow on an AE as USB 2.0. The USB 3.0 specification supports a 5gbps connection speed. If USB 3.0 was in the AE, that connector would support the same 5gbps connection. USB 2.0 supports 480 mbps. Now, if I had an external HDD connected to the AE with a hypothetical USB 3.0 connection and then connected an iMac through Ethernet (not Wi-Fi) to that same AE, I would have a theoretical bandwidth of 1gbps (NIC limits) to the external drive. In the current configuration, my performance would be half that (USB 2.0 limits). I will also address the possible bottleneck of the drive itself. A powered LaCie USB 3.0 2TB external drive has a 7200 RPM drive, and, speaking from hands on experience, has great throughput.

The bottom line here is, if Apple would have included a USB 3.0 controller on the AE, we WOULD see better performance with our time machine backups. In addition, the area of the AE that is in use for backups is the switch and USB controller, not the router.

The point is that the new Airport Extreme is supposed to be faster. It has support for 802.11ac which tops out at 1.3Gbps.

Therefore, the value of the new router is speed. It is reasonable to expect it to be faster accessing a hard drive via USB. USB 3.0 is pretty well standard everywhere now a days, Apple should include it here are well. The fact that its lacking is a serious detractor to its value proposition as being faster.

el Duque wrote:

If Apple moved to USB 3, I'm not sure it's going to be equivalent speed to USB 2. I mean, you see transfer rates at 50% of what normal USB 2 supports, but I'm not sure that means adding USB 3 you will get 50% of that bandwidth. Apple (and other manufacturers) would have to seriously alter the hardware of a router. Of course I admit it's possible they could do this, but the cost would be great. They would have to give it a much more powerful chip that would be overkill for a router.

It's probably not worth it for any manufacturer since it would drive costs high, and besides, that's what a NAS is for. Why spend a lot of money on something for a small feature most people don't use, for something another device does extremely well?

Because that "small feature" is the conduit to backup your ATC. Tell that to my ATC that I backup to a USB-attached 3TB external drive. Yes I keep off-timecapsule backups of my timecapsule backups, and if you're wondering why, you've never had the priviledge of an Apple "Genius" ask you "You have this backed up, right?" when you take your ATC (i.e. your backup device) in for warranty repair due to shoddy hardware failure. I once asked them if they're at-all aware how ridiculous that question sounds given the item being worked on. The response was an expected not-so-bright look.

Back to my Time Capsule. A 900gB slurp to an attached USB external takes 18 hours to complete vs detaching the drive, attaching it to my comp, and copying it as USB3 (1h 45 minutes). I can't wait until this thing has 2.6TB of backups on it and it takes 2-1/2 days to archive to an attached drive. And hats off to Apple for not having at least a differential (if not incremental) archive feature for archiving your time capsules. That would have at least made their cheap-out decision to use 14 year-old technology on a "modern" device bearable.

I realize its a CPT (cost-per-thousand) issue. And its obvious that extra couple bucks per unit would have eaten into their, what, 40%+ profit margin on TC's ? Anyway. that "feature" isn't just used for NAS'ing attached drives. Some of us use it to backup Apple's backups (you only have to be bitten once by that croc to never allow it to happen again; ever).

NO other manufacturer has a router that saturated USB 2 bus, so why are you complaining to Apple for something that has nothing to so with them?

Again, buy a NAS if you want/need fast transfer speeds - this is what they are good for.

I don't know why everyone is in disbelief and can't accept the truth. Don't blame the messenger...

el Duque wrote:

NO other manufacturer has a router that saturated USB 2 bus, so why are you complaining to Apple for something that has nothing to so with them?

Again, buy a NAS if you want/need fast transfer speeds - this is what they are good for.

I don't know why everyone is in disbelief and can't accept the truth. Don't blame the messenger...

Did you read what I wrote?? I don't use the attached USB device for NAS. I don't even access the attached disk from the network. The attached disk to it is there for one purpose: it is the target of archive dumps from the ATC only.

The only thing I'm blaming the messanger for is naively thinking someone with a gripe about poor performance on a USB2 channel attached to an ATC must be because they're trying to use it for NAS. I'm not. I'm using it to archive my ATC. The Archive feature allows you to (and is the only way to) snapshot your internal ATC disk in case your ATC dies and you need to restore your Time Machine history for all your nodes. If you've never had to do that, consider yourself lucky. If you have done it you know how dreadfully slow it is across that line.

Bottom line. I don't use my ATC nor any USB-attached disks therein for NAS storage; ever. Never have, and I never will. Its sole purpose on this earth is for keeping time machine incrementals of the macbook pro's and airs used by my family. Periodic archive snapshots of my ATC internal disk to an attached USB disk are incredibly poor performing, and Apple is keenly aware of it. They could have put a USB3 or even eSATA port on the device, but chose not to. What should take only a few hours (2.6TB archive dump of the internal ATC disk) currenty takes DAYS. Worse, the ATC is not available for client increment tm-backups during that time. Wouldn't be that big a deal for a few hours. Down that long for days just to make an archive dump is ludicrous.

I concur there is disbelief present in this thread, but in this specific case that disbelief is rooted in failure to acknowledge some people use their ATC USB port to hedge their bets to have a fallback scenario when Apple's hardware fails. And the apple-doesn't-suck-any-worse-than-other-routers is both weak and insulting. Some expect the premium they're paying for Apple might include something besides a pretty package and a logo: like maybe superior quality and performance. This specific feature of this specific device falls woefully short on the latter of those. It didn't have to. It was chosen to to save a few bucks.

WhozCraig wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?? I don't use the attached USB device for NAS. I don't even access the attached disk from the network. The attached disk to it is there for one purpose: it is the target of archive dumps from the ATC only.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. It's just an external drive hooked up to the AE.

The only thing I'm blaming the messanger for is naively thinking someone with a gripe about poor performance on a USB2 channel attached to an ATC must be because they're trying to use it for NAS. I'm not. I'm using it to archive my ATC. The Archive feature allows you to (and is the only way to) snapshot your internal ATC disk in case your ATC dies and you need to restore your Time Machine history for all your nodes. If you've never had to do that, consider yourself lucky. If you have done it you know how dreadfully slow it is across that line.

I don't think you understand this thread or any of my responses. Maybe you should take 2 minutes to read through it.

Bottom line. I don't use my ATC nor any USB-attached disks therein for NAS storage; ever. Never have, and I never will. Its sole purpose on this earth is for keeping time machine incrementals of the macbook pro's and airs used by my family. Periodic archive snapshots of my ATC internal disk to an attached USB disk are incredibly poor performing, and Apple is keenly aware of it. They could have put a USB3 or even eSATA port on the device, but chose not to. What should take only a few hours (2.6TB archive dump of the internal ATC disk) currenty takes DAYS. Worse, the ATC is not available for client increment tm-backups during that time. Wouldn't be that big a deal for a few hours. Down that long for days just to make an archive dump is ludicrous.

I concur there is disbelief present in this thread, but in this specific case that disbelief is rooted in failure to acknowledge some people use their ATC USB port to hedge their bets to have a fallback scenario when Apple's hardware fails. And the apple-doesn't-suck-any-worse-than-other-routers is both weak and insulting. Some expect the premium they're paying for Apple might include something besides a pretty package and a logo: like maybe superior quality and performance. This specific feature of this specific device falls woefully short on the latter of those. It didn't have to. It was chosen to to save a few bucks.

TL;DR ... buy a NAS. The USB port on the AE will work for what you need, but it's really really slow. It sounds like this angers you, and I bet a NAS would solve your poblems.

el Duque wrote:

TL;DR ... buy a NAS. The USB port on the AE will work for what you need, but it's really really slow. It sounds like this angers you, and I bet a NAS would solve your poblems.

I understood your replies in this thread. And that a USB2 port is slow doesn't anger me in the slightest. When you say "you're never going to even saturate the USB 2.0 bus, so having USB 3.0 is pointless." I not only disagree, I have a legitimate reason to do so. I expect it to be slow. It is, after all, USB2. My point in all of this is :

• It didn't have to be slow. Apple chose to cut costs and drop decade-old technology on their "all-new" device. If Apple had an option that cost $50 more and had eSATA, USB3, or TB I would have paid for it gladly.
• There are people that use their USB port for something besides hard drive sharing, though Apple bullet-points said-sharing as a "feature" of the ATC and APE, regardless of the performance. I'm one of them. I use it for archives of my ATC backup volume. Indeed this is the only mechanism the ATC supports for archiving, and in that arena it is positively hidieous. You can't use the Archive feature of an ATC to dump to a NAS, or any other network device, or I would have long-ago done so. This is it, and it is dreadful, by their choice; not mine, and it didn't have to be.

I hope at least that was clear enough. I've no beef with you claiming people trying to share a hard drive over USB2 should chill out. But some of us a a legitimite gripe about Apple's choice of USB2 for an entirely different reason.

And if you can read this thread in 2 minutes, Evelynn Wood has nothing on you. (if you don't know what that means, apologies in advance).