Why Transfer from internal HD to USB External Drive?

Discussion in 'Windows XP Hardware' started by W. eWatson, May 6, 2010.

  1. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    I'm trying to transfer about 64G from an internal drive to an external
    Seagate Free Agent 1.0 terrabyte drive (Subject). The estimated time is
    about 3.3 hours. That seems very slow. I have no idea if I'm using a USB
    2.0 or 1.0 port. I ran Sandra and it showed USB Controller 5, 12419 NEC
    PIC to USB 2.0. No other USB controller shows any USB version, that is,
    not 1.0. I have about a six year old ASUSA7S333 MB.

    How do I know which of the 6 USB ports (four on a card), two in front,
    is the 2.0 port? Only five USB controllers are listed by Sandra. One of
    the front ones may not be connected.
     
    W. eWatson, May 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    Re: Why Transfer from internal HD to USB External Drive [So Slow]?

    (Just added more to Subject that I missed)
    On 5/6/2010 11:36 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm trying to transfer about 64G from an internal drive to an external
    > Seagate Free Agent 1.0 terrabyte drive (Subject). The estimated time is
    > about 3.3 hours. That seems very slow. I have no idea if I'm using a USB
    > 2.0 or 1.0 port. I ran Sandra and it showed USB Controller 5, 12419 NEC
    > PIC to USB 2.0. No other USB controller shows any USB version, that is,
    > not 1.0. I have about a six year old ASUSA7S333 MB.
    >
    > How do I know which of the 6 USB ports (four on a card), two in front,
    > is the 2.0 port? Only five USB controllers are listed by Sandra. One of
    > the front ones may not be connected.
     
    W. eWatson, May 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. W. eWatson

    T Shadow Guest

    Re: Why Transfer from internal HD to USB External Drive [So Slow]?

    "W. eWatson" <> wrote in message
    news:hrv2kv$me7$-september.org...
    > (Just added more to Subject that I missed)
    > On 5/6/2010 11:36 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
    >> I'm trying to transfer about 64G from an internal drive to an external
    >> Seagate Free Agent 1.0 terrabyte drive (Subject). The estimated time is
    >> about 3.3 hours. That seems very slow. I have no idea if I'm using a USB
    >> 2.0 or 1.0 port. I ran Sandra and it showed USB Controller 5, 12419 NEC
    >> PIC to USB 2.0. No other USB controller shows any USB version, that is,
    >> not 1.0. I have about a six year old ASUSA7S333 MB.
    >>
    >> How do I know which of the 6 USB ports (four on a card), two in front,
    >> is the 2.0 port? Only five USB controllers are listed by Sandra. One of
    >> the front ones may not be connected.

    >


    3.3 hours is way less than USB 1.1 would take. While USB2 is supposedly
    480mb/s, ~130mb/s is what one device gets. I'd think under perfect
    conditions it would take over an hour with USB2. USB 1.1 would be more than
    12 hours. IOW don't expect internal drive speeds.

    Look in Device Manager, sorted by connection & then resources(IRQ), and make
    sure the USB port your using isn't on the same IRQ as something(s) that's
    used heavily. LIke say, the graghics card. If so try another one. This
    type thing is more in line with a realistic speed increase you can expect.
    BTW expected times is just that, you need to see what it actually takes to
    decide how fast it is.
     
    T Shadow, May 6, 2010
    #3
  4. W. eWatson

    Paul Guest

    W. eWatson wrote:
    > I'm trying to transfer about 64G from an internal drive to an external
    > Seagate Free Agent 1.0 terrabyte drive (Subject). The estimated time is
    > about 3.3 hours. That seems very slow. I have no idea if I'm using a USB
    > 2.0 or 1.0 port. I ran Sandra and it showed USB Controller 5, 12419 NEC
    > PIC to USB 2.0. No other USB controller shows any USB version, that is,
    > not 1.0. I have about a six year old ASUSA7S333 MB.
    >
    > How do I know which of the 6 USB ports (four on a card), two in front,
    > is the 2.0 port? Only five USB controllers are listed by Sandra. One of
    > the front ones may not be connected.


    First of all, the items in the Device Manager, are not "Ports".
    They're "logic blocks".

    The USB2 one is shared. One USB2 logic block may feed as many as
    six USB ports.

    The sharing ratio on USB 1.1 logic blocks is different. One USB 1.1
    logic block is shared over two ports.

    To operate six USB ports on a modern computer, requires one USB2
    logic block and three USB 1.1 logic blocks.

    (These ratios are common, but there are exceptions.)

    When a USB device is plugged in, there is a negotiation procedure
    that decides whether the port is "bound" to a USB 1.1 logic
    block or a USB 2.0 logic block.

    *******

    To test your drive, try HDTune. I presume it works over a USB
    interface.

    http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

    If you run the "benchmark" test, it does sequential reads (which is
    the most efficient way to access the hard drive). On a USB2
    hard drive, the USB bus protocol is the limiting factor. You can
    expect somewhere in the order of 30MB/sec (about five times faster
    than your current claimed transfer rate). USB hard drive protocol
    seems incapable of reaching the 60MB/sec promised by the PHY
    data speed. So you get about 30MB/sec out of it.

    Your HDTune benchmark, if it is working properly, should be a
    "flat line" at 30MB/sec.

    On some older USB2 controller chips, you might see 20MB/sec. There
    were some controller chips, that were less capable.

    If you see an actual flat line at 6MB/sec, then that is too fast
    for USB 1.1 rate. USB 1.1 achieves 1MB/sec. If you're getting 6MB/sec,
    that is in between any reasonable values, and I don't have an explanation
    (at least, where sequential access is concerned).

    Since the USB2 controller is shared, if you had a number of USB2 webcams
    capturing video, at the same time as you were doing your disk transfer,
    that might explain it. But I've yet to run into someone, who was doing
    so much simultaneous USB operations, to have that happen.

    If you were transferring files between two external USB2 drives, you'd
    expect the achieved rate to be lower in that case.

    And if you transfer a lot of small files, your average transfer rate
    will be very low. That is because, all the "seek" head movement, takes
    up precious transfer time, reducing efficiency.

    *******

    The A7S333 uses an SIS745 chipset. The claim here, is it has two OHCI controllers
    driving six total ports. OHCI is USB 1.1. (EHCI is USb 2.0). For you to be seeing
    more than 1 MB/sec transfer rate on that computer, you must be using a separate
    PCI USB2 card.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080616045830/http://www.sis.com/products/sis745.htm

    Paul
     
    Paul, May 6, 2010
    #4
  5. W. eWatson

    W. eWatson Guest

    On 5/6/2010 2:23 PM, Paul wrote:
    > W. eWatson wrote:
    >> I'm trying to transfer about 64G from an internal drive to an external
    >> Seagate Free Agent 1.0 terrabyte drive (Subject). The estimated time
    >> is about 3.3 hours. That seems very slow. I have no idea if I'm using
    >> a USB 2.0 or 1.0 port. I ran Sandra and it showed USB Controller 5,
    >> 12419 NEC PIC to USB 2.0. No other USB controller shows any USB
    >> version, that is, not 1.0. I have about a six year old ASUSA7S333 MB.
    >>
    >> How do I know which of the 6 USB ports (four on a card), two in front,
    >> is the 2.0 port? Only five USB controllers are listed by Sandra. One
    >> of the front ones may not be connected.

    >
    > First of all, the items in the Device Manager, are not "Ports".
    > They're "logic blocks".
    >
    > The USB2 one is shared. One USB2 logic block may feed as many as
    > six USB ports.
    >
    > The sharing ratio on USB 1.1 logic blocks is different. One USB 1.1
    > logic block is shared over two ports.
    >
    > To operate six USB ports on a modern computer, requires one USB2
    > logic block and three USB 1.1 logic blocks.
    >
    > (These ratios are common, but there are exceptions.)
    >
    > When a USB device is plugged in, there is a negotiation procedure
    > that decides whether the port is "bound" to a USB 1.1 logic
    > block or a USB 2.0 logic block.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > To test your drive, try HDTune. I presume it works over a USB
    > interface.
    >
    > http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe
    >
    > If you run the "benchmark" test, it does sequential reads (which is
    > the most efficient way to access the hard drive). On a USB2
    > hard drive, the USB bus protocol is the limiting factor. You can
    > expect somewhere in the order of 30MB/sec (about five times faster
    > than your current claimed transfer rate). USB hard drive protocol
    > seems incapable of reaching the 60MB/sec promised by the PHY
    > data speed. So you get about 30MB/sec out of it.
    >
    > Your HDTune benchmark, if it is working properly, should be a
    > "flat line" at 30MB/sec.
    >
    > On some older USB2 controller chips, you might see 20MB/sec. There
    > were some controller chips, that were less capable.
    >
    > If you see an actual flat line at 6MB/sec, then that is too fast
    > for USB 1.1 rate. USB 1.1 achieves 1MB/sec. If you're getting 6MB/sec,
    > that is in between any reasonable values, and I don't have an explanation
    > (at least, where sequential access is concerned).
    >
    > Since the USB2 controller is shared, if you had a number of USB2 webcams
    > capturing video, at the same time as you were doing your disk transfer,
    > that might explain it. But I've yet to run into someone, who was doing
    > so much simultaneous USB operations, to have that happen.
    >
    > If you were transferring files between two external USB2 drives, you'd
    > expect the achieved rate to be lower in that case.
    >
    > And if you transfer a lot of small files, your average transfer rate
    > will be very low. That is because, all the "seek" head movement, takes
    > up precious transfer time, reducing efficiency.
    >
    > *******
    >
    > The A7S333 uses an SIS745 chipset. The claim here, is it has two OHCI
    > controllers
    > driving six total ports. OHCI is USB 1.1. (EHCI is USb 2.0). For you to
    > be seeing
    > more than 1 MB/sec transfer rate on that computer, you must be using a
    > separate
    > PCI USB2 card.
    >
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20080616045830/http://www.sis.com/products/sis745.htm
    >
    >
    > Paul

    Well, whatever the cause, it certainly changed this evening when I tried
    copy 86G. I put the USB plug into a different block on the 4 block card.
    I started the transfer about 30 minutes ago and a message appeared
    immediately it would take 72 minutes!

    I've noticed this "flakiness" before in doing these transfers. One day
    it takes only 10-20 minutes, and then a week later when I want to do a
    similar transfer, it takes 2 hours. I guess a strategy is for really
    long transfers is to change the plug to another block when the estimated
    time seems out of bounds.
     
    W. eWatson, May 7, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sylvestre

    Usb key and external usb drive

    Sylvestre, Apr 17, 2004, in forum: Windows XP Hardware
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    239
    Sylvestre
    Apr 17, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    924
    Guest
    Jan 27, 2005
  3. Swaroop
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    273
    Jonny
    Jun 11, 2006
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    135
    Bob Harris
    Dec 10, 2006
  5. W. eWatson
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    728
    Twayne
    Mar 11, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page