CRU ToughTech Duo C Storage Enclosure (2x 2.5" to USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C) Review
by Ganesh T S on November 18, 2016 8:00 AM ESTMiscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks
Storage bridges that support UASP fully can translate the SCSI UNMAP command to TRIM commands for SSDs connected to the downstream port. Checking for TRIM support has been a bit tricky so far. CyberShadow's trimcheck is a quick tool to get the status of TRIM support. However, it presents a couple of challenges: it sometimes returns INDETERMINATE after processing, and, in case TRIM comes back as NOT WORKING or not kicked in yet, it is not clear whether the blame lies with the OS / file system or the storage controller / bridge chip or the SSD itself. In order to get a clear idea, our TRIM check routine adopts the following strategy:
- Format the SSD in NTFS
- Load the trimcheck program into it and execute
- Use the PowerShell command Optimize-Volume -DriveLetter Z -ReTrim -Verbose (assuming that the drive connected to the storage bridge is mounted with the drive letter Z)
- Re-execute trimcheck to determine status report
Conclusions can be made based on the results from the last two steps. For the ToughTech Duo C, we first tested out TRIM support for one of the drives in a JBOD configuration.
Given that TRIM support doesn't exist even for JBOD configuration, there is no point testing out the RAID configurations. CRU indicated that they are waiting for support from ASMedia to issue a firmware update with TRIM support. So, it is conceivable that we will be able to get TRIM support in the future for the JBOD configuration, at the least.
One of the interesting aspects that deserves mention again is the bus-powered nature of the unit. There is a LED indicator to inform users of the need to use a power adapter. But, we found in our testing with multiple PCs that a green light doesn't necessarily mean that the adapter is not necessary. In certain bus-powered cases, we found that the internal volume would mount, but, hang in the course of some stressful operations. In some cases, using a shorter Type-C to Type-C cable resolved the issue. In other cases, we had to use the power adapter. The symptom and resolution varied from system to system. It also depends on the power consumption of the 2.5" drives used in the enclosure. For completely flawless operation, it is advisable to use the AC power adapter irrespective of the USB POWER LED status.
The CRU ToughTech Duo C is currently available only on CRU's product page. There are various SKUs available with pre-installed hard-drives and SSDs. The diskless enclosure is priced at $179. This is quite steep compared to the $89 for the MiniPro RAID V3 from Oyen Digital. The latter even supports 2.5" drives that are 15mm thick, compared to the 9.5mm drives supported by the ToughTech Duo C. However, the ToughTech Duo C has easily removable drive bays and a more compact profile. Based on the user manual of the MiniPro RAID V3, it appears that the ToughTech Duo C is simpler to configure and operate.
The CRU ToughTech Duo C belongs to a unique class of products enabled by the emergence of the USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C standard. It is a good fit for a variety of use-cases involving backups and the necessity for fast storage. Our only point of concern is the pricing compared to other similar products in the market. Based on CRU's profile, it appears that the majority of their business is selling to big companies and government agencies - $179 is a price that those entities might be willing to pay for the ToughTech Duo C. From the perspective of the average consuer, it is just a bit too high despite the industrial design deserving a premium.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
jb14 - Friday, November 18, 2016 - link
Jog on iranterresiranterres - Friday, November 18, 2016 - link
Too bad if you like to insult people with opposite opinions.Tony Merryfield - Friday, November 18, 2016 - link
Too bad you think everything has to revolve around your needs and interests.iranterres - Friday, November 18, 2016 - link
Even worse when you have assumptions you're not aware of.close - Saturday, November 19, 2016 - link
Then what exactly are you basing your statement that "Anandtech is in a wave of uninteresting reviews...sadly."?Have you conducted a survey among some or most readers? Have you found some markers that objectively prove that the reviews are "uninteresting"? Or were you just basing that solely on your personal opinions and preferences that you then generalized in your misplaced belief that they are relevant and matter to others?
I actually don't expect an *good* answer. Reader quality has also gone down around here ;).
irusun - Saturday, November 19, 2016 - link
I think it's an interesting article and this seemed like a really weird article to unleash the "Anandtech is going downhill" comment (I'm paraphrasing).However, that aside, I've been visiting this site weekly for over 15 years, and its obviously changed a great deal over that time. An argument could be made that the quality has plummeted in recent years, which in turn drove away much of the long-time audience (or they at least became much less active readers/commenters), and in turn, they're left with a very, ahem, specific audience. In other words, audiences change based on the content, so maybe there's a correlation between reader quality and the quality of the site.
I've been reading Ars for just as long, and that site has completely remade itself into a tech version of the Huffington Post... they've attracted a huge audience, but it's largely an unrecognizable audience to the way it was 10 years ago.
p.s. no ill feelings towards the staff of Anandtech, and for certain technical areas, Anandtech still can't be beat. Keep up the good work as best you can!
iranterres - Monday, November 21, 2016 - link
People are getting used to be so sensitive about facing opposite opinions, oh geez.I have never questioned the usefulness of the article, but the quality of the recent ones is bad. Looks rushed and some copy and paste galore. That's MY opinion like it or not as I do respect others and don't go bitching around about it.
Maybe next time we need some thermal paste reviews...
Tony Merryfield - Friday, November 18, 2016 - link
Interestingly, all the revcontent content is about revcontent. Laughable, and in itself a terrible advert for the company.irusun - Saturday, November 19, 2016 - link
I can't get over the utter stupidity of the USB forum creating completely unnecessary confusion with USB 3.1 Gen 1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 naming conventions. Was USB 3.2 already taken? USB 4? Really, you know that they're were a bunch of guys at that meeting who were just laughing their asses off at the anticipated consumer confusion it was going to cause - I guarantee you they thought it was hilarious.close - Saturday, November 19, 2016 - link
Initially there was no confusion. You had USB 3.0 since 2008 and USB 3.1 since 2013. Then someone decided it's a good idea to lend a hand to manufacturers that really had to market their sagging old products as having brand new features... by just changing a few characters on a specsheet.Manufacturers just "convinced" USB-IF that they should just be allowed to use the same USB 3.0 controllers but call them USB 3.1 thus tricking most users, increasing sales and cutting costs based on what could only be called a lie.
The specs for 3.0 and 3.1 are pretty similar, certainly nothing on the difference between 2.0 and 3.0 so calling them 3.0 and 3.1 made perfect sense - tiny version increment.
Don't forget that the USB-IF is a non profit organisation so money must be made somehow... You can thank the following people/companies for this:
HP Inc. - Alan Berkema
Intel Corporation - Brad Saunders
Microsoft Corporation - Toby Nixon
Renesas Electronics - Philip Leung
STMicroelectronics - Joel Huloux