Usb 2.0

[Skippybox]

I have two 3.5" external hard drives that support USB 2.0. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by 2.0's performance over 1.0. Supposedly, the transfer rate is up to 40x better, at around 480Mbps (60MBps), than USB 1.0's 12Mbps (1.5MBps).

When I connect one of the drives solely on a USB 1.0 port, I can only achieve about 0.75MBps, but over 2.0 ports I only get slightly more than 1.5MBps. I am using the 1.0 ports included with my PC, but for 2.0 I am using a PC Card. I am also using the USB 2.0 cables that come with the drives.

Since the drive is easily faster than the potential transfer rate, what is accounting for such poor performance? Isn't 2.0 suppose to be better than this?

[j7n]

I've had two USB enclosures for hard discs. The transfer speed was 22 MB/s reading, and 12 MB/s writing. If you're connection is that slow then obviously something isn't working properly and it's a matter of finding out if it's the computer, cables or the HDD.

USB 1.0 should give 950 kB/s.

Can you operate other devices connected to these USB ports, like a scanner, or USB flash?

[Skippybox]

Configuration

The transfer speed was 22 MB/s reading, and 12 MB/s writing.

That sounds much better, but rather surprising considering the max could be 60MB/s. Do drives run that slow, despite the interface?

USB 1.0 should give 950 kB/s.

Mine is probably close to that. I'm not really dissatisfied with 1.0.

Can you operate other devices connected to these USB ports, like a scanner, or USB flash?

Oh, of course. But none of my scanners, printers, cameras, or flash devices are supportive of USB 2.0.

If you're connection is that slow then obviously something isn't working properly and it's a matter of finding out if it's the computer, cables or the HDD.

Well, that would be a lot of trial and error. I'd need another set of everything just for comparison. Well, here's what I've got:

• SimpleTech SimpleDrive FV-U35/500 3.5" 7200RPM 500GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
• SimpleTech SimpleDrive CC-USB235/250 3.5" 7200RPM 250GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
• Nexxtech USB 2.0 Cardbus PC Card Adapter N2PUCB
• Sony VAIO Notebook PCG-FXA36
  AMD Athlon 4 1GHz Processor
  256MB RAM
  Windows XP Home SP2

Do you see any problems, or do you need more info?

[j7n]

The same disk drive can write at 30-45 MB/s and read at 65 MB/s when connected to a SATA port directly. The ATA-to-USB bridge is like a middleman which will always slow things down, hence the development of eSATA or makeshift solutions to bring the SATA cable out of the case.

I can't really help you with this problem. My only solution is to swap the parts and see if there's a difference. The common occurence of USB working at 1.0 speed is not here, since you said that the speed climbs above 12 megabits.

[Skippybox]

Wow, I thought drives were still faster than that, for some reason. Yeah, my SimpleDrive actually says it can use the SATA interface, but I later found out it was mislabled! Apparently, the Pro drive offers this. However, I don't believe there is a SATA PC Card for notebooks, just desktops, right? My notebook probably wouldn't support it though anyway.

I'm kind of leaning towards the USB2.0 PC card as being faulty here. Perhaps its just cheap, and just barely performs over 1.5MB/s, so as to consider itself 2.0! In fact, recently it freezes my notebook just plugging it in. Not sure why. The computer and hard drives are probably sound design, unless the internal interface is somehow slow in the drives.

[WellOiledPC]

I have two 3.5" external hard drives that support USB 2.0. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by 2.0's performance over 1.0. Supposedly, the transfer rate is up to 40x better, at around 480Mbps (60MBps), than USB 1.0's 12Mbps (1.5MBps).

When I connect one of the drives solely on a USB 1.0 port, I can only achieve about 0.75MBps, but over 2.0 ports I only get slightly more than 1.5MBps. I am using the 1.0 ports included with my PC, but for 2.0 I am using a PC Card. I am also using the USB 2.0 cables that come with the drives.

Since the drive is easily faster than the potential transfer rate, what is accounting for such poor performance? Isn't 2.0 suppose to be better than this?

USB 2.0 is definitely much, much faster than 1.0. I have a Desktop that has USB 1.0 alone - it is such a pain, watching files transferring from, say a Flash Drive to the Desktop, while the same file is transferred in the blink of an eye onto my Notebook, with USB 2.0!

You seem to be getting real slow speeds with both USB 1.0 as well as USB 2.0 though!

[ChuckE]

You will never see theoretical speeds, or speed improvements, like the supposedly 40x improvement going from USB 1.0 to 2.0. I have only experienced a 10x speed increase. On one computer I had seen a nearly 20x speed increase. But never expect 40x.

I do think that your 1.5 Mbps is a bit slow, I get from 5 to 10MBps myself. I think it is your equipment.

...Well, here's what I've got:

• SimpleTech SimpleDrive FV-U35/500 3.5" 7200RPM 500GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
• SimpleTech SimpleDrive CC-USB235/250 3.5" 7200RPM 250GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
• Nexxtech USB 2.0 Cardbus PC Card Adapter N2PUCB
• Sony VAIO Notebook PCG-FXA36
  AMD Athlon 4 1GHz Processor
  256MB RAM
  Windows XP Home SP2

Do you see any problems, or do you need more info?

First thing, I have seen slow performance with Sony notebooks. I think Sony makes physically beautiful boxes, and there is some great interface options on the newer Sony computers, I have never been impressed with their performance. (That's just my opinion.) But that does not explain it alone.

You are using a Cardbus adapter and that can be a bit slow on an underpowered computer. And your computer is a bit underpowered. It is a 1GHz Athlon with just 256MB running WinXP.

That is about the lowest amount of memory you can have and still expect things to "happen today" when you are using WinXP. I looked at the specs of your computer and I see it uses PC100 memory, and while it has two memory slots, it maxes out at having only 256MB per slot, a total of just 512 MB. If you get more memory I think you may find a substantial increase in overall speed. You might even try two 512MB memory modules, just for grins, just to see if the total memory gets seen. (Can you even find PC100 512MB modules? If so just try one 512MB alone. If that one module gets fully seen, then having two 512MBs will probably work.) Your computer has just a 200MHz buss, so trying to go to the faster PC133 memory is not going to help.

Running WinXP on a total of 1GB of memory is much better. I see substantial speed increases when going on up to 1GB, with not nearly the same performance increase when going higher than 1GB.

Last item, that CardBus adapter, which gives you two USB 2.0 ports, and since you have both in use, is going to be slowed down a bit if you are transferring from one of the USB ports to the other. If you were just using one port and copying to/from the internal hard drive might be a bit faster.

Have you considered just getting a newer laptop?

[Skippybox]

Thanks ChuckE for letting me in on what I could expect. I know from other sources that one cannot expect the theoretical, but obviously I wasn't anywhere near that, so I was a bit concerned.

You're probably right about the Sony's performance. It is no thriller, but it has satisfied me and still works very well. I bought it for longevity, and after eight years I think I've got that. Other notebooks may have been a better choice for speed, but I doubt they would have lasted as long.

The areas you point to could all very well contribute to the overall slowness of my USB2.0. I still have to wonder though why the computer would be underpowered. I mean, this was a decent machine when they sold it, and why couldn't I utilize its PCMCIA card slots to add functionality? It's not like I am trying to multi-task here either. Maybe this notebook was made to barely run as designed, but I find it hard to imagine how a cheaper lighter model would have performed that I passed up.

I believe I must always have both memory slots filled, so I would only be able to use two new 256MB modules to replace my 128MB ones. Or I could mix 'n' match. 512MB modules are probably out of the question in this thing. Memory would be a good boost, and you can still get even 32MB modules today (all quite cheap compared to the PC Card!).

I think you're right that using both ports simultaneously diminishes the speed. But, that is exactly what I need to do. I would like to frequently pass information from one USB drive to the other USB drive in addition to my HDD. I have had problems with even the 1.0 ports in a similar respect. When using a USB mouse on one 1.0 port and a flash drive on the other 1.0 port, I get I/O errors when working with a USB reader during certain transfer and file operations. Taking the mouse off the system stops the errors.

New laptop? Well, that would be easy and great, but I'm reluctant to move to Vista or 7. It's also a bit of an investment, since I won't be going for a $500 model or some little Netbook. Rather than buying something inexpensive every three years, I usually go high-end for as long as I can. You almost have to when the OS gets as bloated as it does.

[ChuckE]

Win7 (also, perhaps, better recognized as Viista ) is a VERY GOOD choice for your somewhat under powered laptop. I have heard some very good reports about Win7 installed on netbooks (and you thought your laptop was underpowered!) and those reports are coming through with glowing remarks.

I have put Win7 on two of my PCs here, and I have yet to see anything not work well. Win7 has been a great new OS. I hardily recommend it. I don't know if the free download of the Win7 RC (Release Candidate) is still available, but if you can get it ... do it!

I have an .iso of the MS released Win7 here, and I have used it about 4 times, so far. It installs very easily, and it seems like the OS that we all hoped that Vista would have been. The only reason I think Microsoft changed the name from Vista, to Win7, was to distance themselves from the stigma of the "Vista blackeye." Since most of the operations of Win7 and all of the drivers are pretty much Vista, but it just works better, with less of a hit on the hardware.

For free, find and try, Win7. I don't think you will be disappointed.

[Skippybox]

OK, I'll consider it. I believe it is still available for a few days. I don't meet the system requirements though (1GB RAM minimum), so I can't install it on my notebook which would max out at 512MB.

Microsoft probably wants to try to stop putting XP on Netbooks. Win7 is probably better, but I do notice that XP has a few things that I still like. I remember comparing Vista and Win7 before, thinking I would like 7 better, but kind of was actually leaning towards Vista. If you say Win7 performs better though, maybe those few reservations won't matter so much. Maybe if I get a Notebook now, I could actually get both OSs for the same money to truly compare, since Win7 is a free upgrade with purchases.

Still, I love XP, and statistics show it is amazingly successful with close to 70% share of the market still! That may be a real problem for Microsoft...

[ChuckE]

Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.

[Skippybox]

Well, I decided against the upgrade for a couple of reasons. For one, MS actually did not recommend XP users to upgrade. Two, the space requirement was still too steep 16GB+15GB (for WindowsXP mode), which is beyond my 20GB HDD. Even barely running it at 16GB would have been pretty useless, unless I bought a new drive for my programs.

Considering I already needed RAM upgrades (which were still insufficient), probably graphics upgrades (which were impossible), and processor upgrades, it just looked better to stay with my fine system and buy a new computer later that would work way better for the price. I need to find a replacement anyway, since I'm sure the other parts won't last forever, even if I upgraded. Besides, I need better video performance anyway for my files.

I also would have had a problem with the download, since it would take all day to get, even on basic DSL. And the ISO is for a DVD, but my computer can't burn DVDs, only read them. So, someone else would have had to do that for me.

All in all, it would have been a great effort, without much guarantee of a reward.

[matera]

If all you can get into it is 512MB RAM, get the 2x256 and stick with XP for now. It's a good OS. The realistic minimum for Vista is 2G. It would probably crawl like a stomped worm with 512 or less, though your processor makes mine look puny. I'm sure 7 is no sparer of memory; every new version of Windwoes wants twice what the last demanded. My now-retired XP machine sailed over everthing except manipulation of large images with 512. It's headed for a new job -- part-time office work -- for which it is moderately overqualified.

[WellOiledPC]

Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.

Windows 7 does work very well with 1 GB RAM. 20 GB HDD is cutting it too fine though - my installed Windows 7 Folder alone is a little over 10 GB. Not much you can add, by way of essential software, in the remaining space!

The debacle that was Windows Vista is only ONE of half a dozen reasons for Windows 7 being named so. Yes, Windows 7 is being written so that it can run reasonably well on Netbooks: with Windows XP being phased out, MS MUST have a suitable OS for the Netbook and Vista simply cannot be the chosen one, thanks to its (resource) drinking habits!

BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread?

[ChuckE]

...BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread?

no, not at all. I was conversing with the originator of the thread, Skippybox, and his original problem was his experience with his slow experience with USB 2.0. I mentioned that Sony laptops are not rated in my "fast column" but I suggested that if he goes to the Win7 he might get a better experience. Even though Win7 requirements, from MS, are high, I dispute them. It is my impression that Win7 will work on PCs that are very much under the suggestions from MS.

So, hijacking this thread? not even, not when talking to the originator of the thread, when going the direction that the originator steers you to.

What's your point? Are we good?