Why virtualise your NAS environment?
Onnto TB-S120 hard disk enclosure
The Onnto TB-S120 is hard disk enclosure offering USB 2.0, FireWire 400 and FireWire 800 connectivity.
- Multiple connection options
- Needs power adapter for USB connection
Only its inability to be powered by a USB cable mars the versatile Onnto TB-S120 drive, which in other respects is a nicely built and highly specified hard disk enclosure.
Price$ 149.00 (AUD)
Note: Pricing for this product is in US$.
The capacity of external USB hard drives is going up all the time. Unfortunately, most only offer a USB 2.0 connection, which limits how quickly you can get your data onto or off the drive.
The Onnto TB-S120 hard disk enclosure is a flexible solution to the problem. It's an empty case with three different connection standards, namely USB 2.0, FireWire 400 and FireWire 800. And in our tests, we found using the latter rewards you with transfer speeds twice that of USB.
The Onnto TB-S120 is neatly constructed from an aluminium extrusion with silver-painted plastic ends. Inside a metal tray supports the circuit board, with the three interface types and a DC power input on one end.
With FireWire, you can daisy-chain several devices together, and to this end the Onnto TB-S120 includes two FW 800 ports for this purpose (but only one port for FW 400).
Also included in the box is a power adaptor, and sadly we found this was required for USB operation. Only with FireWire connections was the Onnto TB-S120 drive happy to be entirely bus-powered.
We found it straightforward to install a WD Scorpio Blue hard disk, a 2.5in drive firmly secured in place by four screws to the PCB.
Using Simpli HD Tach 3.0 for speed tests, we found that USB 2.0 and FireWire 400 were very close in read performance - 27.4MB/s and 26.0MB/s respectively. In data write tests, the FW 400's 21.5MB/s figure nudged out USB's 19.1MB/s.
And it was with FW 800 that the unit came into its own, able to read at 60.2MB/s and write at 27.2MB/s, with bursts of up to 82.9MB/s.
Impressively, FireWire only consumed 1-2 percent system CPU, while USB needed 17 percent.
Join the newsletter!
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 ASUS FX503 review: An ROG Notebook By Any Other Name
- 2 HP Envy x360 (Ryzen 5) review: Power over portability
- 3 Oppo A73 review: The budget smartphone that sets the bar for 2018
- 4 Oppo R11s review: The iClone you know and love, but not quite the one you deserve
- 5 Blackberry KEYone Black Edition review: What the original KEYone should have been
Latest News Articles
- Polycom Renew Their Most Iconic Teleconferencing Solution
- Google's Espresso networking tech takes SD-WAN to internet scale
- IEEE sets new Ethernet standard that brings 5X the speed without disruptive cable changes
- New Skype Preview lets Windows 10 Insiders manage phone texts on PCs
- 5 ways Cisco could become an iPhone's best friend
PCW Evaluation Team
Touch screen visibility and operation was great and easy to navigate. Each menu and sub-menu was in an understandable order and category
The printer was convenient, produced clear and vibrant images and was very easy to use
I would recommend this device for families and small businesses who want one safe place to store all their important digital content and a way to easily share it with friends, family, business partners, or customers.
It’s easy to set up, it’s compact and quiet when printing and to top if off, the print quality is excellent. This is hands down the best printer I’ve used for printing labels.
Brainstorming, innovation, problem solving, and negotiation have all become much more productive and valuable if people can easily collaborate in real time with minimal friction.
The print quality also does not disappoint, it’s clear, bold, doesn’t smudge and the text is perfectly sized.
- Frostpunk review: A richly conceived and vividly realised city sim
- Netgear Arlo Go review: An expensive but comprehensive home security solution
- Fitbit Versa review: New look, better price, same limits
- What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?