USB hard disk speed?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

When I recently copied about 4.6GB from my AcomData 7200RPM USB 2.0
60GB external disk drive to a Verbatim 16X DVD+R disk via my Plextor
PX-716A 16X internal drive, there were several pauses to replenish the
cache after it reached about 8X write speed. The copy operation
averaged about 400MB/minute. During verification, it paused again
several times after it reached about 8X read speed. I expected
something faster both directions. Copying the same data between from
an internal hard drive and the DVD drive results in no such pauses or
slowdowns, so I presume the USB 2.0 interface slows the operation.

Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?

Russell May
21 answers Last reply
More about hard disk speed
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    news:ia96h1lkg6tiq1p55c14bputjd8o3pb30n@4ax.com...
    > When I recently copied about 4.6GB from my AcomData 7200RPM USB 2.0
    > 60GB external disk drive to a Verbatim 16X DVD+R disk via my Plextor
    > PX-716A 16X internal drive, there were several pauses to replenish the
    > cache after it reached about 8X write speed. The copy operation
    > averaged about 400MB/minute. During verification, it paused again
    > several times after it reached about 8X read speed. I expected
    > something faster both directions. Copying the same data between from
    > an internal hard drive and the DVD drive results in no such pauses or
    > slowdowns, so I presume the USB 2.0 interface slows the operation.
    >
    > Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    > internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >
    > Russell May
    >

    Did you try to copy same data between internal HD and USB 2.0 HD?
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:01:17 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    >news:ia96h1lkg6tiq1p55c14bputjd8o3pb30n@4ax.com...
    >> When I recently copied about 4.6GB from my AcomData 7200RPM USB 2.0
    >> 60GB external disk drive to a Verbatim 16X DVD+R disk via my Plextor
    >> PX-716A 16X internal drive, there were several pauses to replenish the
    >> cache after it reached about 8X write speed. The copy operation
    >> averaged about 400MB/minute. During verification, it paused again
    >> several times after it reached about 8X read speed. I expected
    >> something faster both directions. Copying the same data between from
    >> an internal hard drive and the DVD drive results in no such pauses or
    >> slowdowns, so I presume the USB 2.0 interface slows the operation.
    >>
    >> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >>
    >> Russell May
    >>
    >
    >Did you try to copy same data between internal HD and USB 2.0 HD?

    Reading and writing the USB 2.0 HD subjectively seems a little slow:
    Sometimes there are a few pauses while playing video on the USB drive.
    Copying between internal HD and USB HD is significantly slower than
    copying between internal hard disks, but I have not timed it. I have
    just lived with it being a little slow. The USB performance became
    more important when I got a DVD drive and larger internal HD.

    I did a little research and found this:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030116/

    The review is a couple of years older than my USB drive but I think
    the enclosure is from the same manufacturer. The review shows even
    lower write performance than what I got while copying to DVD, but
    significantly higher read performance.

    My external drive also has a Firewire connection which might give
    better performance. I have not tried it, but maybe I should do so.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    news:gih6h15klp15lslkmv1q60dkva5b4jdaro@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:01:17 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    >>news:ia96h1lkg6tiq1p55c14bputjd8o3pb30n@4ax.com...
    >>> When I recently copied about 4.6GB from my AcomData 7200RPM USB 2.0
    >>> 60GB external disk drive to a Verbatim 16X DVD+R disk via my Plextor
    >>> PX-716A 16X internal drive, there were several pauses to replenish the
    >>> cache after it reached about 8X write speed. The copy operation
    >>> averaged about 400MB/minute. During verification, it paused again
    >>> several times after it reached about 8X read speed. I expected
    >>> something faster both directions. Copying the same data between from
    >>> an internal hard drive and the DVD drive results in no such pauses or
    >>> slowdowns, so I presume the USB 2.0 interface slows the operation.
    >>>
    >>> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >>> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >>>
    >>> Russell May
    >>>
    >>
    >>Did you try to copy same data between internal HD and USB 2.0 HD?
    >
    > Reading and writing the USB 2.0 HD subjectively seems a little slow:
    > Sometimes there are a few pauses while playing video on the USB drive.
    > Copying between internal HD and USB HD is significantly slower than
    > copying between internal hard disks, but I have not timed it. I have
    > just lived with it being a little slow. The USB performance became
    > more important when I got a DVD drive and larger internal HD.

    Russ - I find very little difference in copying from one internal harddrive
    to another vs copying from an internal harddrive to a harddrive in a USB 2
    enclosure.

    Just to confirm, did you measure the copy from the internal harddrive to the
    DVD?

    Also, how are you 'copying' to a DVD drive? Using packet writing with an
    RW?
    >
    > I did a little research and found this:
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030116/
    >
    > The review is a couple of years older than my USB drive but I think
    > the enclosure is from the same manufacturer. The review shows even
    > lower write performance than what I got while copying to DVD, but
    > significantly higher read performance.
    >
    > My external drive also has a Firewire connection which might give
    > better performance. I have not tried it, but maybe I should do so.
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:10:13 GMT, "fj" <jelenko@att.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    >news:gih6h15klp15lslkmv1q60dkva5b4jdaro@4ax.com...
    >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:01:17 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:ia96h1lkg6tiq1p55c14bputjd8o3pb30n@4ax.com...
    >>>> When I recently copied about 4.6GB from my AcomData 7200RPM USB 2.0
    >>>> 60GB external disk drive to a Verbatim 16X DVD+R disk via my Plextor
    >>>> PX-716A 16X internal drive, there were several pauses to replenish the
    >>>> cache after it reached about 8X write speed. The copy operation
    >>>> averaged about 400MB/minute. During verification, it paused again
    >>>> several times after it reached about 8X read speed. I expected
    >>>> something faster both directions. Copying the same data between from
    >>>> an internal hard drive and the DVD drive results in no such pauses or
    >>>> slowdowns, so I presume the USB 2.0 interface slows the operation.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >>>> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >>>>
    >>>> Russell May
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Did you try to copy same data between internal HD and USB 2.0 HD?
    >>
    >> Reading and writing the USB 2.0 HD subjectively seems a little slow:
    >> Sometimes there are a few pauses while playing video on the USB drive.
    >> Copying between internal HD and USB HD is significantly slower than
    >> copying between internal hard disks, but I have not timed it. I have
    >> just lived with it being a little slow. The USB performance became
    >> more important when I got a DVD drive and larger internal HD.
    >
    >Russ - I find very little difference in copying from one internal harddrive
    >to another vs copying from an internal harddrive to a harddrive in a USB 2
    >enclosure.
    >
    >Just to confirm, did you measure the copy from the internal harddrive to the
    >DVD?
    >
    >Also, how are you 'copying' to a DVD drive? Using packet writing with an
    >RW?
    >>
    >> I did a little research and found this:
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030116/
    >>
    >> The review is a couple of years older than my USB drive but I think
    >> the enclosure is from the same manufacturer. The review shows even
    >> lower write performance than what I got while copying to DVD, but
    >> significantly higher read performance.
    >>
    >> My external drive also has a Firewire connection which might give
    >> better performance. I have not tried it, but maybe I should do so.
    >>

    I timed several operations. I used only Verbatim 16X DVD+R disks.

    Data were written from HD to DVD via "Nero 6 Ulta Edition" Burning
    ROM. Data were written from HD or DVD to HD using copy and paste in
    "My Computer". Data written from internal HD to internal HD were
    copied and pasted between directories on the same partition. Data
    total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.

    Environment: OS=WinXP Home SP2, CPU=P4 2.4GHz, Mbd=Gigabyte 8IEXP,
    memory=1.0GB ECC DDR, internal HD=Samsung SP2014N (200GB NTFS 7200RPM
    ATA100, indexing enabled), external HD=Samsung SP6003H (60GB NTFS
    7200RPM ATA100 in Acom Data USB/FW enclosure, indexing disabled),
    DVD drive=Plextor PX-716A (16X ATA66), media=Verbatim 16X DVD+R,
    antivirus=CA eTrust, antispam=Microsoft, #tasks=about 48,
    applications=none except My Computer or Nero as applicable.

    Copy times and rates:
    From DVD to internal HD: 26min 10sec (about 174MB/minute)
    From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)

    I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.

    Disabling Microsoft AntiSpam had no significant effect.

    Snoozing (disabling) CA eTrust Antivirus had a significant effect.
    From internal HD to internal HD: 7min 1sec (about 637MB/minute)
    about 40% faster than with AV.

    Writing to DVD was irregular:
    From internal HD to DVD: Write operation paused four times to
    replenish the read buffer at about 2'58", 3'10", 3'35", 7'15". Verify
    operation started at about 4.9X, paused starting at about 25% progress
    and 6.8X, varied irregularly from 960KB/sec to 8X until about 50%
    progress, became regular again, finished at 11.8X.
    From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: Write operation paused fifteen times to
    replenish the buffer starting at about 2'10". It paused about every 30
    seconds. Verify operation started at about 4.9X, went to 7.3X at about
    25% progress, varied irregularly from there to about 32% progress,
    became regular to about 56%, varied again to about 68%, went to 10.7X
    there and became regular until about 97% progress, finished at 11.3X.

    Plextools Professional Write Transfer rate test results were irregular
    DVD disk #1: Write Transfer rate started at 6.76X, went to about 14X
    at 3.1GB, dropped to steady 12.23X there, dropped to
    steady 4.07X at about 3.6GB, finished at 4.07X.
    DVD disk #1: Simulated Write started at 6.76X, dropped to steady
    12.23X at about 3.3GB, finished at 12.23X.
    DVD disk #2: Write Transfer rate started at 6.76X, went to about 14.5X
    at 3.6GB, dropped to steady 12.23X there, finished at
    12.23X.
    DVD disk #2: Simulated Write started at 6.76X, finished at 16.29X.

    Plextools Professional Read Transfer rate test results were regular
    for both DVDs: Read transfer rate started at 4.93X, ended at 11.81X.

    Writing an image of the internal HD (about 27GB) to the USB 2.0 HD
    using Ghost 2003 averages about 410MB/minute, fills up the USB HD.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Copy times and rates:
    > From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    > From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    > From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    > verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    > From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >
    > I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.

    > Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    > internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?

    > Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.

    There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    drops 8 min range to 10 min range. I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower
    than internal HD, more fragmented or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for
    transferring that many (30K+) files.

    When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    two different internal HDs?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:39:32 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >> Copy times and rates:
    >> From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    >> From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    >> From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    >> verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    >> From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >>
    >> I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >
    >> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >
    >> Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.
    >
    >There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    >drops 8 min range to 10 min range. I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower
    >than internal HD, more fragmented or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for
    >transferring that many (30K+) files.
    >
    >When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    >two different internal HDs?
    >

    Same HD. "Data written from internal HD to internal HD were
    copied and pasted between directories on the same partition."
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:39:32 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >> Copy times and rates:
    >> From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    >> From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    >> From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    >> verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    >> From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >>
    >> I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >
    >> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >
    >> Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.
    >
    >There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    >drops 8 min range to 10 min range. I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower
    >than internal HD, more fragmented or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for
    >transferring that many (30K+) files.

    Copying between internal HD and USB drive was only about 20 seconds
    slower (about 3%) than copying from internal HD to internal HD, not
    two minutes. The two minute difference between the HDs' times was for
    writing to the DVD drive. See above.

    Both HDs were defragmented prior to the tests.

    The SP6003H is slower than the SP2014N, but both should be capable of
    sustained transfer rates well over 657MB/minute (11MB/second).

    USB overhead might be significant if the USB enclosure operates like
    to the one reviewed by tomshardware, mentioned in my previous-previous
    message. The review is about the same age as my USB drive, not two
    years older as I said in that message.

    OS or seek time overhead seems much more than I expected.

    Antivirus had more effect than I expected. Copying without AV
    "From internal HD to internal HD: 7min 1sec (about 637MB/minute)
    about 40% faster than with AV."

    I tried the internal HD to to internal HD test on a different computer
    (Dell GX260, OS=Win2K SP4, CPU=P4 2.4GHz, HD=IBM 30GB 75GXP NTFS) and
    data (3,278,976,512 bytes; 47552 files; 2119 folders). Disabling
    Symantec Antivirus File System Auto-Protect sped it up by about 25%
    (16min 58sec versus 21min 8sec).

    Copying from the DVD seems slow
    "From DVD to internal HD: 26min 10sec (about 174MB/minute)".

    Writing to the DVD was irregular and sometimes slow (results deleted
    above). I don't have easy access to another computer with a DVD drive.

    These tests make me begin to wonder whether there is a problem with
    the DVD drive. It's about six weeks old, with the latest firmware.

    The media could be bad, but Plextor recommends these Verbatim 16X
    DVD+R disks and cdrlabs tested them to be among the best for this
    drive.

    >When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    >two different internal HDs?
    >

    Same HD. "Data written from internal HD to internal HD were
    copied and pasted between directories on the same partition."
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    > > Copy times and rates:
    > > From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    > > From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > > From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    > > From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    > > verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    > > From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > > verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    > >
    > > I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >
    > > Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    > > internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >
    > > Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.
    >
    > There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    > drops 8 min range to 10 min range.

    > I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower than internal HD,

    Now isn't that is a big surprise when USB-2 is limited to ~35MB/s.

    > more fragmented

    Possibly, since the 435/60=~7MB/s is well below the 35MB/s USB limit.

    > or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for transferring that many (30K+) files.

    That should be a bug in the OS then.

    >
    > When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    > two different internal HDs?
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    >"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    >> > Copy times and rates:
    >> > From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    >> > From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> > From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    >> > From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    >> > verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    >> > From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> > verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >> >
    >> > I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >>
    >> > Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >> > internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >>
    >> > Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.
    >>
    >> There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    >> drops 8 min range to 10 min range.
    >
    >> I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower than internal HD,
    >
    >Now isn't that is a big surprise when USB-2 is limited to ~35MB/s.
    >
    >> more fragmented
    >
    >Possibly, since the 435/60=~7MB/s is well below the 35MB/s USB limit.
    >
    >> or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for transferring that many (30K+) files.
    >
    >That should be a bug in the OS then.
    >
    >>
    >> When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    >> two different internal HDs?

    Both drives were defragmented before the tests.

    I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    60MB/sec, but I did not how much less. Thanks for the information.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > >> Copy times and rates:
    > >> From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    > >> From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > >> From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    > >> From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    > >> verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    > >> From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > >> verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    > >>
    > >> I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    > >
    > >> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    > >> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    > >
    > >> Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604
    folders.
    > >
    > >There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best
    speed
    > >drops 8 min range to 10 min range. I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower
    > >than internal HD, more fragmented or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for
    > >transferring that many (30K+) files.
    >
    > Copying between internal HD and USB drive was only about 20 seconds
    > slower (about 3%) than copying from internal HD to internal HD, not
    > two minutes. The two minute difference between the HDs' times was for
    > writing to the DVD drive. See above.
    >
    > Both HDs were defragmented prior to the tests.
    >
    > The SP6003H is slower than the SP2014N, but both should be capable of
    > sustained transfer rates well over 657MB/minute (11MB/second).

    The problems is that tranferring of 4GB of data in more than 30,000 files
    rarely runs at STR speed.
    If you read and write on the same HD, it would be much closer to random IO.

    >
    > USB overhead might be significant if the USB enclosure operates like
    > to the one reviewed by tomshardware, mentioned in my previous-previous
    > message. The review is about the same age as my USB drive, not two
    > years older as I said in that message.
    >
    > OS or seek time overhead seems much more than I expected.

    ??

    >
    > Antivirus had more effect than I expected. Copying without AV
    > "From internal HD to internal HD: 7min 1sec (about 637MB/minute)
    > about 40% faster than with AV."

    Yeah. That's how AV works. A lot of overhead on HD writes.

    >
    > I tried the internal HD to to internal HD test on a different computer
    > (Dell GX260, OS=Win2K SP4, CPU=P4 2.4GHz, HD=IBM 30GB 75GXP NTFS) and
    > data (3,278,976,512 bytes; 47552 files; 2119 folders). Disabling
    > Symantec Antivirus File System Auto-Protect sped it up by about 25%
    > (16min 58sec versus 21min 8sec).
    >
    > Copying from the DVD seems slow
    > "From DVD to internal HD: 26min 10sec (about 174MB/minute)".

    Again, that is rather random IO, not sequential. DVD performance might be
    just fine.

    >
    > Writing to the DVD was irregular and sometimes slow (results deleted
    > above). I don't have easy access to another computer with a DVD drive.

    Now, writing 30,000 files to DVD might be performed in quasi-sequential
    mode, since data has to be burned to disk. That's why writing is faster than
    reading.

    >
    > These tests make me begin to wonder whether there is a problem with
    > the DVD drive. It's about six weeks old, with the latest firmware.
    >
    > The media could be bad, but Plextor recommends these Verbatim 16X
    > DVD+R disks and cdrlabs tested them to be among the best for this
    > drive.
    >
    > >When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    > >two different internal HDs?
    > >
    >
    > Same HD. "Data written from internal HD to internal HD were
    > copied and pasted between directories on the same partition."
    >

    You should perform random IO tests for each device: internal HD, USB 2.0 HD
    and DVD drive.
    Pick data set size around 4GB with 100KB files.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    > > > > Copy times and rates:
    > > > > From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    > > > > From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > > > > From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    > > > > From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    > > > > verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    > > > > From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    > > > > verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    > > > >
    > > > > I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    > > >
    > > > > Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    > > > > internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    > > >
    > > > > Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604 folders.
    > > >
    > > > There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best speed
    > > > drops 8 min range to 10 min range.
    > >
    > > > I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower than internal HD,
    > >
    > > Now isn't that is a big surprise when USB-2 is limited to ~35MB/s.
    > >
    > > > more fragmented
    > >
    > > Possibly, since the 435/60=~7MB/s is well below the 35MB/s USB limit.
    > >
    > > > or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for transferring that many (30K+) files.
    > >
    > > That should be a bug in the OS then.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    > > > two different internal HDs?
    >
    > Both drives were defragmented before the tests.
    >
    > I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of

    > 60MB/sec,

    What 60MB/s , it's 480Mbit/sec.

    480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    It's the clock rate converted to bits. There are 10 bits for each byte
    and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is
    the usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).

    > but I did not how much less. Thanks for the information.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
    news:43150283$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    > >
    > > I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    >
    > > 60MB/sec,
    >
    > What 60MB/s , it's 480Mbit/sec.
    >
    > 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    > It's the clock rate converted to bits. There are 10 bits for each byte
    > and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is
    > the usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    > on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).
    >
    USB 1.1 uses NRZI with bit stuffing. To encode a byte takes about 8.1 bits.
    Data packets are 1-1024 bytes, with several bytes overhead.

    Nobody seems to know why full speed (12Mb/s) has a maxium of 1MB/s,
    instead of the expected 1.5MB/s. USB 2 seems to have 60% of 60MB/s.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:42:48 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >> >> Copy times and rates:
    >> >> From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    >> >> From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> >> From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    >> >> From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    >> >> verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    >> >> From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >> >> verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >> >>
    >> >> I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >> >
    >> >> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive and
    >> >> internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve it?
    >> >
    >> >> Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604
    >folders.
    >> >
    >> >There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy, best
    >speed
    >> >drops 8 min range to 10 min range. I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower
    >> >than internal HD, more fragmented or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for
    >> >transferring that many (30K+) files.
    >>
    >> Copying between internal HD and USB drive was only about 20 seconds
    >> slower (about 3%) than copying from internal HD to internal HD, not
    >> two minutes. The two minute difference between the HDs' times was for
    >> writing to the DVD drive. See above.
    >>
    >> Both HDs were defragmented prior to the tests.
    >>
    >> The SP6003H is slower than the SP2014N, but both should be capable of
    >> sustained transfer rates well over 657MB/minute (11MB/second).
    >
    >The problems is that tranferring of 4GB of data in more than 30,000 files
    >rarely runs at STR speed.
    >If you read and write on the same HD, it would be much closer to random IO.
    >
    >>
    >> USB overhead might be significant if the USB enclosure operates like
    >> to the one reviewed by tomshardware, mentioned in my previous-previous
    >> message. The review is about the same age as my USB drive, not two
    >> years older as I said in that message.
    >>
    >> OS or seek time overhead seems much more than I expected.
    >
    >??
    >
    >>
    >> Antivirus had more effect than I expected. Copying without AV
    >> "From internal HD to internal HD: 7min 1sec (about 637MB/minute)
    >> about 40% faster than with AV."
    >
    >Yeah. That's how AV works. A lot of overhead on HD writes.
    >
    >>
    >> I tried the internal HD to to internal HD test on a different computer
    >> (Dell GX260, OS=Win2K SP4, CPU=P4 2.4GHz, HD=IBM 30GB 75GXP NTFS) and
    >> data (3,278,976,512 bytes; 47552 files; 2119 folders). Disabling
    >> Symantec Antivirus File System Auto-Protect sped it up by about 25%
    >> (16min 58sec versus 21min 8sec).
    >>
    >> Copying from the DVD seems slow
    >> "From DVD to internal HD: 26min 10sec (about 174MB/minute)".
    >
    >Again, that is rather random IO, not sequential. DVD performance might be
    >just fine.
    >
    >>
    >> Writing to the DVD was irregular and sometimes slow (results deleted
    >> above). I don't have easy access to another computer with a DVD drive.
    >
    >Now, writing 30,000 files to DVD might be performed in quasi-sequential
    >mode, since data has to be burned to disk. That's why writing is faster than
    >reading.
    >
    >>
    >> These tests make me begin to wonder whether there is a problem with
    >> the DVD drive. It's about six weeks old, with the latest firmware.
    >>
    >> The media could be bad, but Plextor recommends these Verbatim 16X
    >> DVD+R disks and cdrlabs tested them to be among the best for this
    >> drive.
    >>
    >> >When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the same HD or
    >> >two different internal HDs?
    >> >
    >>
    >> Same HD. "Data written from internal HD to internal HD were
    >> copied and pasted between directories on the same partition."
    >>
    >
    >You should perform random IO tests for each device: internal HD, USB 2.0 HD
    >and DVD drive.
    >Pick data set size around 4GB with 100KB files.

    Could you suggest test program(s) to accomplish this?

    I did some more tests. To make a long story short, disabling AV
    increased write rate by about 25% to 40% in all "My Computer" copy and
    paste operations. Nero write rate from USB 2.0 HD to DVD decreased by
    by 9% (!) and verify rate increased by only 5%, but there was only one
    brief pause and irregularity to replenish the read buffer instead of
    fifteen. It went much smoother than with AV enabled.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    > news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    >> <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >>> "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >>> news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    >>>>> Copy times and rates:
    >>>>> From internal HD to internal HD: 9min 48sec (about 455MB/minute)
    >>>>> From internal HD to USB 2.0 HD: 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >>>>> From USB 2.0 HD to internal HD: 10min 14sec (about 435MB/minute)
    >>>>> From internal HD to DVD: write 7min 55sec (about 565MB/minute)
    >>>>> verify 7min 17sec (about 612MB/minute)
    >>>>> From USB 2.0 HD to DVD: write 10min 5sec (about 442MB/minute)
    >>>>> verify 7min 20sec (about 608MB/minute)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I did not have enough time to measure from DVD to USB 2.0 HD.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Is 400MB/minute normal for copying between a USB 2.0 hard drive
    >>>>> and internal 16X DVD drive? Is there something simple to improve
    >>>>> it?
    >>>>
    >>>>> Data total 4460MB (4,704,600,604 bytes) from 31616 files and 1604
    >>>>> folders.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is a pattern. Whenever USB 2.0 HD is involved in data copy,
    >>>> best speed drops 8 min range to 10 min range.
    >>>
    >>>> I'm assuming that USB 2.0 HD is slower than internal HD,
    >>>
    >>> Now isn't that is a big surprise when USB-2 is limited to ~35MB/s.
    >>>
    >>>> more fragmented
    >>>
    >>> Possibly, since the 435/60=~7MB/s is well below the 35MB/s USB
    >>> limit.
    >>>
    >>>> or USB 2.0 has higher overhead for transferring that many (30K+)
    >>>> files.
    >>>
    >>> That should be a bug in the OS then.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> When you say "from internal HD to internal HD" do you mean the
    >>>> same HD or two different internal HDs?
    >>
    >> Both drives were defragmented before the tests.
    >>
    >> I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    >
    >> 60MB/sec,

    > What 60MB/s ,

    60MBytes/s cretin.

    > it's 480Mbit/sec.

    > 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    > It's the clock rate converted to bits. There are 10 bits for each byte

    Wrong.

    > and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is the
    > usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    > on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).

    >> but I did not how much less. Thanks for the information.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:06 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >> "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message
    >> news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    >>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    >>> <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >>>> "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    >>>>>> Copy times and rates:

    <snip>

    >>> I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    >>
    >>> 60MB/sec,
    >
    >> What 60MB/s ,
    >
    >60MBytes/s cretin.
    >
    >> it's 480Mbit/sec.
    >
    >> 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    >> It's the clock rate converted to bits. There are 10 bits for each byte
    >
    >Wrong.

    You guys got me interested, so I looked it up.
    See http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_02212005.zip
    usb_20.pdf sections 5.4.1, 5.6.3, 5.8.3, 7.1.9, 11.3 for examples.

    Data is listed as 8-bit bytes. Maximum bandwidth is listed as 60MB/sec
    for high-speed isochronous transfers. Bit stuffing (insertion of a
    zero after a sequence of six ones) is data dependent and multiplies
    packet time by up to 7/6, adding an average of up to 4/3 bit time per
    8-bit byte.

    >> and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is the
    >> usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    >> on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).
    >
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotthis.net> wrote in message news:ne9ah1p8vtdc417nscuspp6v54id62o1mv@4ax.com
    > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:06 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > > "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > > > > "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    > > > > > > > Copy times and rates:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > > > I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    > > >
    > > > > 60MB/sec,
    > >
    > > > What 60MB/s ,
    > >
    > > 60MBytes/s cretin.
    > >
    > > > it's 480Mbit/sec.
    > >
    > > > 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    > > > It's the clock rate converted to bits.
    > > >
    > > > There are 10 bits for each byte
    > >
    > > Wrong.
    >
    > You guys got me interested, so I looked it up.

    As I *should* have done. I was so confident that I didn't. Sorry for that.
    The datarates of FireWire and USB are often compared as 400Mbit/s
    vs 480Mbit/s with an 8MB/s head start on USB so I didn't think they
    were different beyond that, as FireWire as well as Serial-ATA both use
    8b/10b encoding, so there I went, assuming USB would too. It doesn't.

    Given that the raw difference after parallel conversion is even bigger,
    40MB/s vs 60MB/s, it's even more amazing that FireWire400 often still
    beats USB 2.0.

    OK. You may serve up the crow now.

    > See http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_02212005.zip
    > usb_20.pdf sections 5.4.1, 5.6.3, 5.8.3, 7.1.9, 11.3 for examples.
    >
    > Data is listed as 8-bit bytes. Maximum bandwidth is listed as 60MB/sec
    > for high-speed isochronous transfers. Bit stuffing (insertion of a
    > zero after a sequence of six ones) is data dependent and multiplies
    > packet time by up to 7/6, adding an average of up to 4/3 bit time per
    > 8-bit byte.
    >
    > > > and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is the
    > > > usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    > > > on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:df36hp013i3@enews3.newsguy.com...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:43150283$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > > "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    > > >
    > > > I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    > >
    > > > 60MB/sec,
    > >
    > > What 60MB/s , it's 480Mbit/sec.
    > >
    > > 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    > > It's the clock rate converted to bits. There are 10 bits for each byte
    > > and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is
    > > the usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    > > on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).
    > >

    > USB 1.1 uses NRZI with bit stuffing.

    Judging from an USB 2.0 application document
    http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/download/2_0_Xcvr_Macrocell_1_05.pdf
    so does USB 2.0

    > To encode a byte takes about 8.1 bits.
    > Data packets are 1-1024 bytes, with several bytes overhead.
    >
    > Nobody seems to know why full speed (12Mb/s) has a maxium of 1MB/s,

    Maybe because that's the real user data datarate?
    That is about the 60% that you mention below (and my 2/3).

    The bwpaper2.pdf that I found says: 'USB is intended
    for devices in the 8Mb/s and below range transfers".
    http://www.usb.org/developers/whitepapers/bwpaper2.pdf

    > instead of the expected 1.5MB/s."

    Well, that is the raw parallel bus rate.

    > USB 2 seems to have 60% of 60MB/s.

    34MB/s, according to another document.
    http://www.usb.org/channel/USB-PerformData-04.pdf

    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:01:23 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    >"Russell May" <russmay@toastNotthis.net> wrote in message news:ne9ah1p8vtdc417nscuspp6v54id62o1mv@4ax.com
    >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:06 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> > Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >> > > "Russell May" <russmay@toastNotThis.com> wrote in message news:q7f9h1h37t8mscsbap890u4kllkefdmhls@4ax.com
    >> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:06:35 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >> > > > > "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:%c_Qe.4946$2F1.298099@news20.bellglobal.com
    >> > > > > > > Copy times and rates:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> > > > I knew that USB 2.0 is limited to less than its maximum data rate of
    >> > >
    >> > > > 60MB/sec,
    >> >
    >> > > What 60MB/s ,
    >> >
    >> > 60MBytes/s cretin.
    >> >
    >> > > it's 480Mbit/sec.
    >> >
    >> > > 480MBit/s is 480Mbit/s . Not 60MB/s and not 48MB/s either.
    >> > > It's the clock rate converted to bits.
    >> > >
    >> > > There are 10 bits for each byte
    >> >
    >> > Wrong.
    >>
    >> You guys got me interested, so I looked it up.
    >
    >As I *should* have done. I was so confident that I didn't. Sorry for that.
    >The datarates of FireWire and USB are often compared as 400Mbit/s
    >vs 480Mbit/s with an 8MB/s head start on USB so I didn't think they
    >were different beyond that, as FireWire as well as Serial-ATA both use
    >8b/10b encoding, so there I went, assuming USB would too. It doesn't.
    >
    >Given that the raw difference after parallel conversion is even bigger,
    >40MB/s vs 60MB/s, it's even more amazing that FireWire400 often still
    >beats USB 2.0.
    >
    >OK. You may serve up the crow now.
    >
    >> See http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_02212005.zip
    >> usb_20.pdf sections 5.4.1, 5.6.3, 5.8.3, 7.1.9, 11.3 for examples.
    >>
    >> Data is listed as 8-bit bytes. Maximum bandwidth is listed as 60MB/sec
    >> for high-speed isochronous transfers. Bit stuffing (insertion of a
    >> zero after a sequence of six ones) is data dependent and multiplies
    >> packet time by up to 7/6, adding an average of up to 4/3 bit time per
    >> 8-bit byte.
    >>
    >> > > and then there is other overhead for serial protocol and then there is the
    >> > > usual overhead for commands. Apparently there is about 1/3 overhead
    >> > > on the converted to bytes number (serial protocol + command overhead).

    There was no harm done. It didn't take long to find the specification,
    and I learned a little in the process.

    Fortunately the USB 2.0 specification is a free download (which is
    unusual) so I could check it easily. Many industry standards are
    costly and thereby much less accessible. IEEE 1394-1995 Firewire spec
    costs USD$161 from http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore, supplements
    add more cost. I did not see titles at http://www.1394TA.org which
    obviously would give protocol details, and I don't wish to become a
    member. Linda Hall library (website http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us) has
    information about it but I am not sure whether even they have the
    specification (which is also unusual) and their hours are sometimes
    inconvenient to me, like being closed all of this Labor Day weekend.

    Most of the sites about Firewire I find with Google are about hardware
    or drivers. Could you (or anyone) recommend sites which would give
    some details about Firewire protocol?
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Most of the sites about Firewire I find with Google are about hardware
    > or drivers. Could you (or anyone) recommend sites which would give
    > some details about Firewire protocol?

    http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~bermbach/research/firewire/files/basics.pdf

    http://www.jdc.ch/dsp_img/1394-1995%20Final%20Draft.PDF
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:00:36 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >> Most of the sites about Firewire I find with Google are about hardware
    >> or drivers. Could you (or anyone) recommend sites which would give
    >> some details about Firewire protocol?
    >
    >http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~bermbach/research/firewire/files/basics.pdf
    >
    >http://www.jdc.ch/dsp_img/1394-1995%20Final%20Draft.PDF

    Thanks for the references.

    1394-1995 Final Draft strongly implies that data payload is in 8-bit
    bytes (four per 32-bit quadlet) without padding or bit stuffing except
    to finish the last data quadlet in a packet. Especially see sections
    6.2 and E.1.2. I found no mention of 10 bit times per byte. The only
    10-bit entities I found were the bus_ID code and arbitration hold
    time. I presume the basic data coding and timing did not change from
    the final draft to the released standard. Did I miss something?
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:00:36 -0400, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >> Most of the sites about Firewire I find with Google are about hardware
    >> or drivers. Could you (or anyone) recommend sites which would give
    >> some details about Firewire protocol?
    >
    >http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~bermbach/research/firewire/files/basics.pdf
    >
    >http://www.jdc.ch/dsp_img/1394-1995%20Final%20Draft.PDF
    >

    Apparently 8b/10b encoding was added in IEEE 1394B for transmission
    above 400MB/sec. Now could anyone recommend sites which would give
    some more details about IEEE 1394B?
Ask a new question

Read More

USB Hard Drives Storage