Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

USB 2.0 External Hard Drive Speed

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 9, 2005 7:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer. I
thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I should
expect?
July 9, 2005 11:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds? Cables,
connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all be 2.0.
As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers correctly. Seems to
me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to add on the right
drivers.

According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical maximums:

USB 1.1
12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes

USB 2.0
480Mb/s = 60MB/s
6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
100 seconds = 1.67 minutes

Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds. Here's a
review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.

Clint

"AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer. I
>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I should
>expect?
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 12:19:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

That is why I am confused. My MB is only about 1 year old with Windows XP
SP2 and USB 2.0 drivers.

The properties on the drive say "USB 2.0 Storage Device". The enclosure is
a Vantec NexStar NST-350U2.

I am using the cable that came with the drive. Drive is brand new and 7200
rpm.


"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ZZVze.114780$9A2.54503@edtnps89...
> Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds? Cables,
> connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all be
> 2.0. As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers correctly.
> Seems to me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to add on
> the right drivers.
>
> According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical
> maximums:
>
> USB 1.1
> 12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
> 6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
> 4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes
>
> USB 2.0
> 480Mb/s = 60MB/s
> 6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
> 100 seconds = 1.67 minutes
>
> Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds. Here's a
> review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
> http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
> For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.
>
> Clint
>
> "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
>>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer. I
>>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I should
>>expect?
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 12:52:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sjWze.1826$ER6.316@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> That is why I am confused. My MB is only about 1 year old with Windows XP
> SP2 and USB 2.0 drivers.
>
> The properties on the drive say "USB 2.0 Storage Device". The enclosure
is
> a Vantec NexStar NST-350U2.
>
> I am using the cable that came with the drive. Drive is brand new and
7200
> rpm.
>
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ZZVze.114780$9A2.54503@edtnps89...
> > Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds? Cables,
> > connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all be
> > 2.0. As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers correctly.
> > Seems to me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to add on
> > the right drivers.
> >
> > According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical
> > maximums:
> >
> > USB 1.1
> > 12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
> > 6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
> > 4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes
> >
> > USB 2.0
> > 480Mb/s = 60MB/s
> > 6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
> > 100 seconds = 1.67 minutes
> >
> > Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds. Here's
a
> > review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
> >
http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
> > For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.
> >
> > Clint
> >
> > "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
> >>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer. I
> >>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I
should
> >>expect?
> >>
> >
> >
>
Your math is flawed. Obviously 60GB in 4min would be15GB/min

60,000,000,000 GB
26,000,000 / GB/s
--------------------------
2,307.69230769230769 = s

60 / m
--------------------------
38.461538461538462 =minutes

My USB2(HiSpeed) drive kit says up to 35MB/s. So he's in the ball park to my
kits specs. Though not the USB2(HiSpeed) spec itself. 480/60 is correct.
Website for info: usb.org
YMMV
July 10, 2005 1:20:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You're right. Move the decimal place on all my calcs... 6,000 MB = 6GB
(approximately), not 60.

Clint

"T Shadow" <knone@zilch.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eOWze.3006$yC5.1238@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:sjWze.1826$ER6.316@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> That is why I am confused. My MB is only about 1 year old with Windows
>> XP
>> SP2 and USB 2.0 drivers.
>>
>> The properties on the drive say "USB 2.0 Storage Device". The enclosure
> is
>> a Vantec NexStar NST-350U2.
>>
>> I am using the cable that came with the drive. Drive is brand new and
> 7200
>> rpm.
>>
>>
>> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ZZVze.114780$9A2.54503@edtnps89...
>> > Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds? Cables,
>> > connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all be
>> > 2.0. As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers correctly.
>> > Seems to me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to add
>> > on
>> > the right drivers.
>> >
>> > According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical
>> > maximums:
>> >
>> > USB 1.1
>> > 12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
>> > 6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
>> > 4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes
>> >
>> > USB 2.0
>> > 480Mb/s = 60MB/s
>> > 6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
>> > 100 seconds = 1.67 minutes
>> >
>> > Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds. Here's
> a
>> > review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
>> >
> http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
>> > For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.
>> >
>> > Clint
>> >
>> > "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
>> >>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer.
>> >>I
>> >>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I
> should
>> >>expect?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
> Your math is flawed. Obviously 60GB in 4min would be15GB/min
>
> 60,000,000,000 GB
> 26,000,000 / GB/s
> --------------------------
> 2,307.69230769230769 = s
>
> 60 / m
> --------------------------
> 38.461538461538462 =minutes
>
> My USB2(HiSpeed) drive kit says up to 35MB/s. So he's in the ball park to
> my
> kits specs. Though not the USB2(HiSpeed) spec itself. 480/60 is correct.
> Website for info: usb.org
> YMMV
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 1:51:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Following the link you provided with the review, I downloaded the HD Speed
utility and ran it. I am getting about 13 - 14 MB/s. So I know it is
working at 2.0 speeds, but it seems pretty slow for what I should be
getting. I guess I need to follow up with Vantec.


"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7cXze.114789$9A2.100088@edtnps89...
> You're right. Move the decimal place on all my calcs... 6,000 MB = 6GB
> (approximately), not 60.
>
> Clint
>
> "T Shadow" <knone@zilch.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eOWze.3006$yC5.1238@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:sjWze.1826$ER6.316@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>> That is why I am confused. My MB is only about 1 year old with Windows
>>> XP
>>> SP2 and USB 2.0 drivers.
>>>
>>> The properties on the drive say "USB 2.0 Storage Device". The enclosure
>> is
>>> a Vantec NexStar NST-350U2.
>>>
>>> I am using the cable that came with the drive. Drive is brand new and
>> 7200
>>> rpm.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ZZVze.114780$9A2.54503@edtnps89...
>>> > Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds? Cables,
>>> > connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all be
>>> > 2.0. As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers
>>> > correctly.
>>> > Seems to me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to add
>>> > on
>>> > the right drivers.
>>> >
>>> > According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical
>>> > maximums:
>>> >
>>> > USB 1.1
>>> > 12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
>>> > 6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
>>> > 4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes
>>> >
>>> > USB 2.0
>>> > 480Mb/s = 60MB/s
>>> > 6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
>>> > 100 seconds = 1.67 minutes
>>> >
>>> > Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds.
>>> > Here's
>> a
>>> > review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
>>> >
>> http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
>>> > For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.
>>> >
>>> > Clint
>>> >
>>> > "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> >>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
>>> >>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer.
>>> >>I
>>> >>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I
>> should
>>> >>expect?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>> Your math is flawed. Obviously 60GB in 4min would be15GB/min
>>
>> 60,000,000,000 GB
>> 26,000,000 / GB/s
>> --------------------------
>> 2,307.69230769230769 = s
>>
>> 60 / m
>> --------------------------
>> 38.461538461538462 =minutes
>>
>> My USB2(HiSpeed) drive kit says up to 35MB/s. So he's in the ball park to
>> my
>> kits specs. Though not the USB2(HiSpeed) spec itself. 480/60 is correct.
>> Website for info: usb.org
>> YMMV
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 2:31:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hadn't noticed the D/Ls before going to see if I remembered the specs
correctly. I'll have to check mine when I get on that computer again.
Biggest file I've moved so far is 13GB. IIRC it took 9-10min so I'm a little
slow to but the kit specs do say >up to 35MB/s<.
If your setup is like mine you should check to see if the USB port the drive
is connected to is sharing an IRQ that's already busy. Putting it on a USB
port that's on another IRQ might give better performance. I had to move a
USB1.1 device for that reason.

"AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lFXze.1843$ER6.799@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Following the link you provided with the review, I downloaded the HD Speed
> utility and ran it. I am getting about 13 - 14 MB/s. So I know it is
> working at 2.0 speeds, but it seems pretty slow for what I should be
> getting. I guess I need to follow up with Vantec.
>
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:7cXze.114789$9A2.100088@edtnps89...
> > You're right. Move the decimal place on all my calcs... 6,000 MB = 6GB
> > (approximately), not 60.
> >
> > Clint
> >
> > "T Shadow" <knone@zilch.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:eOWze.3006$yC5.1238@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> >> "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:sjWze.1826$ER6.316@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> That is why I am confused. My MB is only about 1 year old with
Windows
> >>> XP
> >>> SP2 and USB 2.0 drivers.
> >>>
> >>> The properties on the drive say "USB 2.0 Storage Device". The
enclosure
> >> is
> >>> a Vantec NexStar NST-350U2.
> >>>
> >>> I am using the cable that came with the drive. Drive is brand new and
> >> 7200
> >>> rpm.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >>> news:ZZVze.114780$9A2.54503@edtnps89...
> >>> > Are you sure that you've got it hooked up at USB 2.0 speeds?
Cables,
> >>> > connector on the computer (as well as the external case) should all
be
> >>> > 2.0. As well as ensuring your system has the USB 2.0 drivers
> >>> > correctly.
> >>> > Seems to me some OS's didn't support 2.0 natively, and you had to
add
> >>> > on
> >>> > the right drivers.
> >>> >
> >>> > According to my math, here's the figures based on the theoretical
> >>> > maximums:
> >>> >
> >>> > USB 1.1
> >>> > 12Mb/s = 1.5MB/s
> >>> > 6,000MB/1.5MB/s = 4000 seconds
> >>> > 4000 seconds = 66.67 minutes
> >>> >
> >>> > USB 2.0
> >>> > 480Mb/s = 60MB/s
> >>> > 6,000MB/60MB/s = 100 seconds
> >>> > 100 seconds = 1.67 minutes
> >>> >
> >>> > Seems you're much closer to the 1.1 speeds than the 2.0 speeds.
> >>> > Here's
> >> a
> >>> > review of an external USB 2.0 HD, which averaged 26MB/s transfer:
> >>> >
> >>
http://www.tech-mods.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=...
> >>> > For 60GB, that would have taken about 4 minutes to copy.
> >>> >
> >>> > Clint
> >>> >
> >>> > "AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> >>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I
was
> >>> >>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to
transfer.
> >>> >>I
> >>> >>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I
> >> should
> >>> >>expect?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >> Your math is flawed. Obviously 60GB in 4min would be15GB/min
> >>
> >> 60,000,000,000 GB
> >> 26,000,000 / GB/s
> >> --------------------------
> >> 2,307.69230769230769 = s
> >>
> >> 60 / m
> >> --------------------------
> >> 38.461538461538462 =minutes
> >>
> >> My USB2(HiSpeed) drive kit says up to 35MB/s. So he's in the ball park
to
> >> my
> >> kits specs. Though not the USB2(HiSpeed) spec itself. 480/60 is
correct.
> >> Website for info: usb.org
> >> YMMV
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 4:13:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <lFXze.1843$ER6.799@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, AFGH
says...
> Following the link you provided with the review, I downloaded the HD Speed
> utility and ran it. I am getting about 13 - 14 MB/s. So I know it is
> working at 2.0 speeds, but it seems pretty slow for what I should be
> getting.

Not really. You have to remember that the maximum pseed for USB 2.0
assumes nothing else at all is using the PCI bus.


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 10, 2005 5:52:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3a6a786fa2ca5e98a2d9@news.individual.net...
> In article <lFXze.1843$ER6.799@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, AFGH
> says...
>> Following the link you provided with the review, I downloaded the HD
>> Speed
>> utility and ran it. I am getting about 13 - 14 MB/s. So I know it is
>> working at 2.0 speeds, but it seems pretty slow for what I should be
>> getting.
>
> Not really. You have to remember that the maximum pseed for USB 2.0
> assumes nothing else at all is using the PCI bus.
>
>
> --
> Conor
>
> -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
> K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)


Mbps = mega bits per second

MBps = mega bytes per second

Big difference.

Ed Cregger
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 13, 2005 11:44:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hi,

USB 2.0 is very slow - almost 70% slower than FIREWIRE (IEEE 1394) connected
external HDD.

This is bcs USB uses the CPU to process the signal - IEEE1394 is stand alone
technology; this is why it's used in/on DV cameras.

Your USB drive will never work faster than it's current speed. If you want
fast external HDD, you have to get a case that supports FIREWIRE/IEEE1394.

L8R

"AFGH" <heiber@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nZRze.2426$0w2.996@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>I just got an external hard drive case and put in a hard drive. I was
>copying a 60GB backup file to it. It took about an hour to transfer. I
>thought it would go much faster. What is the expected speed that I should
>expect?
>
!