Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

USB vs SATA II transfer rate

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 12, 2006 10:02:14 PM

If you look at simple stats on buffer to platter transfer rates on hard drives, a typical rate is 780Mbs, and for USB its 480Mbs. I'm not convinced this reflects real world performance.

Lets say you have an external SATA II drive that has both SATA II and USB 2.0 connectors. Let's say you hook up the drive to your external SATA II port and do an RAR file transfer of 1 GB to your internal hardrive, and then you repeat the transfer using USB 2.0.

Does anyone know the REAL difference in speed you will see between the USB 2.0 and SATA II connections using the above test methods?

A friend of mine who thinks he knows it all (Masters in CS) says that the speed difference is negligible. As far as stats go, and stats alone, he is wrong-- 480 Mbps (USB 2.0) vs 780Mbs 7200 RPM SATA 150 HD transfer rates. But I'm wondering if he is more right when comparing real world testing parameters.

Thanks--

More about : usb sata transfer rate

February 13, 2006 12:09:41 PM

Quote:
If you look at simple stats on buffer to platter transfer rates on hard drives, a typical rate is 780Mbs, and for USB its 480Mbs. I'm not convinced this reflects real world performance.

Lets say you have an external SATA II drive that has both SATA II and USB 2.0 connectors. Let's say you hook up the drive to your external SATA II port and do an RAR file transfer of 1 GB to your internal hardrive, and then you repeat the transfer using USB 2.0.

Does anyone know the REAL difference in speed you will see between the USB 2.0 and SATA II connections using the above test methods?

A friend of mine who thinks he knows it all (Masters in CS) says that the speed difference is negligible. As far as stats go, and stats alone, he is wrong-- 480 Mbps (USB 2.0) vs 780Mbs 7200 RPM SATA 150 HD transfer rates. But I'm wondering if he is more right when comparing real world testing parameters.

Thanks--


The 480Mb/s for USB2.0 is not pour DATA. There is control packet as well as data sent.

My USB2.0 drives goes at about 25 MBytes/s. Far from my SATA hdd that goes at about 60 some Mbytes/s.
February 14, 2006 2:51:31 AM

Pat have you timed this using an external HD as I suggest in my initial?

I really want to take this asswipe to task on this, so I really need hard core evidence that he is wrong.

I mean the real world test would be as I've described it above, since we were talking about external HDs and I was wanting an enclosure that would mount a SATA II 3.5 drive and had both USB 2 and SATA II capabilities TO the computer. He said "Why, USB 2 is just about as fast at SATA II." So we're talking about real world transfer rates here from an internal BARE drive mounted externally enclosed in a external bare drive conversion kit (SATA to USB or SATA combo). I'm sure you both know what I'm talking about.

As a general bench mark, if you were transfering 1 GB of iinformation, what would the time difference be between USB and SATA II given the above parameters?
Related resources
February 14, 2006 4:34:17 AM

Yeah that's just what I want. I need it in writing froma trusted source. Thanks man.
February 14, 2006 11:53:37 PM

Quote:
Pat have you timed this using an external HD as I suggest in my initial?

I really want to take this asswipe to task on this, so I really need hard core evidence that he is wrong.

I mean the real world test would be as I've described it above, since we were talking about external HDs and I was wanting an enclosure that would mount a SATA II 3.5 drive and had both USB 2 and SATA II capabilities TO the computer. He said "Why, USB 2 is just about as fast at SATA II." So we're talking about real world transfer rates here from an internal BARE drive mounted externally enclosed in a external bare drive conversion kit (SATA to USB or SATA combo). I'm sure you both know what I'm talking about.

As a general bench mark, if you were transfering 1 GB of iinformation, what would the time difference be between USB and SATA II given the above parameters?


I have 2 hdd in external enclosure (WD120 Gigs and Maxtor 200gigs) and they run as fast as USB allow.. between 22 and 25 MBytes /s.

You can seatch for motherboard review, on anandtech, for review of the a8r-mvp and some nforce4 motherboard. they test the speed of usb and sata so you'll have the proof you need.

but anyway.. usb2.0 run at 480Mbits/seconds whlie sata2 specs allow for 3.0 Gigabits/seconds, about 6 time faster interface speed..
February 15, 2006 5:11:37 AM

Pat, those specs can't be compared like that. We're talking about a real world test where you take information off of a hard drive and transfer that same information to another hard drive. It other words, overall transfer rate, or the time it takes to write a file(s) using USB and then compared that to SATA II, all other things being equal.

I've searched like 2 hours last night and couldn't find anything like that. I found something close, but no real tests like that.

Any links would be appreciated.
February 15, 2006 2:01:39 PM

USB is quick, Firewire quicker, IDE Fast, SATA Faster, SATAII Faster still...
February 15, 2006 10:29:38 PM

Thanks nfor the link Antony. However, those are only burst speeds, which can be no doubt misleading when you are talking about the METHOD ABOVE!!!!!!!!!<--Real Time Transfer Rate. You would think someone, uh like Tom's, would do that test.

Quote:
The exact test you are talking about is done with this enclosure. It is made by Vantec. I just bought one from zipzoomfly. I expect it early next week along with a Seagate 250GB sata drive.

Anthony


http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/review.php?item=vante...
February 15, 2006 10:31:19 PM

Yeah that will definitely convince a person who has their Masters Degree in CS from University of St. Luois.

Quote:
USB is quick, Firewire quicker, IDE Fast, SATA Faster, SATAII Faster still...
February 15, 2006 10:36:27 PM

Quote:
Pat, those specs can't be compared like that. We're talking about a real world test where you take information off of a hard drive and transfer that same information to another hard drive. It other words, overall transfer rate, or the time it takes to write a file(s) using USB and then compared that to SATA II, all other things being equal.

I've searched like 2 hours last night and couldn't find anything like that. I found something close, but no real tests like that.

Any links would be appreciated.


listen.. I'm nothome righ now but I c a assure you that moving a file to my usb enclosure take 3-4 more time than moving the same file between 2 sata or pata hdd..
February 15, 2006 10:42:22 PM

Wusy,

Yeah I found that too. Too bad they didn't compare eSATA also, but I didn't check the date--perhaps it wasn't available. What I'll need to do is find the same drive tested using eSATA then find the same drive and enclosure on this essay and comapre them--however that will be near impossible unless I can find teh exact same drive, enclosure, and test program+platform.

My friend isn't going to buy anything, I am. He simply was telling me I was an idiot for wanting a eSATA connection instead of (or now with) USB 2.0, since he thinks USB 2.0 compared to eSATA is "not much faster."

This is just a war of EGO, and his is too big and he is wrong. I just want to chop him down by showing him incontrovertible evidence that he is WRONG. Plus, and I will make this coment to him, for someone in the IT business and with a Master Degree in CS, he better get his $hit together. I mean if he tells his clients that USB is almost as fast as SATA II, he is grossly misleading them.

And since this discussion we had, he said he doesn't want to talk to me about technical things anymore becsaue I don't know what I'm talking about. I've pretty much written him off as any type of friend, but revenge in this way is indeed sweet. I know you feel the same way, so let's keep looking bro.

Quote:
That is the best I found. It's between USB2 and Firewire on the same enclosure.
If you were to strip the drive out and put it on IDE it would be even faster.

If your friend still isn't convinced, then suggest him to get Firewire800 instead.
February 18, 2006 11:24:49 PM

Easy way to settle this is the two of you pick out a USB SATA Combo Enclosure and a hard drive. Put agreed upon data on it and then time the 2 transfers with a stop wacth. The loser pays and the winner has a new external hard drive.
April 16, 2007 9:10:37 AM

Guys,

I just bought a Lacie Two Big 1TB drive which is basically two 500GB Maxtor drives in an external enclosure with a RAID controller bolted on.
I have configured the drives as a RAID1 (mirror) setup. As I rely on this for my work (as a photographer) it would be crazy for me to choose any other option.
This provides both USB2 and eSATA connectors. In order to get the eSATA working I ended up buying the Lacie PCI-X card (as my mobo supports PCI-X which is rare. I couldn't get the eSATA port on my Asus mobo (Marvell controller) working, so gave up choosing the card instead.
A point of note for anyone buying eSATA cards - unless you get a PCI-X or PCIe card, you are limited to SATA 150.

I'm going to do some timings tonight using both the eSATA and USB2 interfaces to see the differences on both reads and writes.

Will let you know!

Cheers, Paul
April 16, 2007 9:51:56 PM

Okay, I did a couple of tests tonight:
Test 1: Copying a single 5.7GB avi file between the Lacie and my internal Raptor comparing eSATA with USB2 both reading and writing to the Lacie.

Test 2: Copying 811 smaller files in 2 directories, totalling 4.07GB between the Lacie Drive and my internal Raptor comparing eSATA with USB both reading and writing to the Lacie.

Test 1 - eSATA Write 1m 32sec, Read 1m 31sec
Test 1 - USB2 Write 3m 10sec, Read 3m 39sec

Test 2 - eSATA Write 1m 00sec, Read 1m 20sec
Test 2 - USB2 Write 2m 57sec, Read 1m 51sec

Okay, the read/write (above) refer to the external Lacie drive. I used my internal Raptor drive (my temporary/swap/ PS scratch file drive) for this test as its the fastest drive I have.

I was surprised with the USB Test 2 on the read, as this was very fast compared to the other tests - not as fast as the eSATA, but a lot closer to eSATA compared with other tests.

I started off doing these tests using my internal RAID5 array (LSI Logic 300x8 hardware PCI-X controller) instead of the Raptor and soon found that whilst the read speed from the RAID5 was comparable with the Raptor, writing to the RAID5 was totally crap - I need to find out why I spent £290 on a hardware PCI-X SATA2 RAID controller and its this sloooow! Looking at Test 1 eSATA Read above - I did this using my RAID5 controller first and it took nearly 7 minutes - highlighting the RAID5 writing issue! Checking for new firmware on the LSI site now!

Anyway, it conclusively shows that eSATA is faster than USB2 in all cases above, using the same external drive. The biggest difference between eSATA and USB2 being seen when writing smaller files to the external drive - eSATA being approx 3 times faster. The least difference being the reading of smaller files from the external drives.

The onboard interfaces and other PC info are as below:

USB2 - integrated controller on Asus P5WDG2 WS Professional mobo
eSATA - Lacie PCI-X 300 4 port eSATA controller
OS: Win XP Pro x64
Mem: 4GB (4x1GB)

Hope this is useful.
Cheers, Paul
www.pjamedia.com
a c 342 G Storage
April 21, 2007 8:51:41 PM

Check this real-world test by Tom's - it is exactly what you ask.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/25/icydocks_mb559_h...

Actually copying files from external to internal and back, using either USB2 or eSATA interfaces with the same external enclosure and HDD. Average transfer rates are 27 to 32 MB/s for USB2, and from 61 down to 32 MB/s (depends on how full the disk is) for eSATA. MAX transfer rate specs do NOT mean much!!

See also this test of a Seagate eSATA External Drive:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/24/seagate_500_gb_e...

It has real-world file transfer rates for external drives with IEEE 1394b (Firewire 800), IEEE 1394a (Firewire400), eSATA and USB2 interfaces, and some for internal directly-connected SATAII drives.
December 2, 2007 4:03:05 AM

Hey thanks for everyone who replied, even though i haven't replied in over a year here. The test exteme tech did was perfect. that pretty much throws mister I know all about everything siilicon's argument under the bus. Actually, I took this information (I found it myself after posting) and put all the documentation, including my own tranfer time test using an internal SATA 300 and eSATA 300 in a Sans Digital enclodure vs an external USB drive (A Hyperdrive model that acieves around 16MBs sustained).

When I saw this guy I opened easily telling him that i know he doesn't want to talk about computers with me becsaue "I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm stupid according to you." Then I told him I had one proposition for him: "I'll give you 5000US dollars if I'm wrong about USB vs. SATA transfer speeds, and you give me 1000US dollars if your wrong, a 5-1 odds, since I'm stupid and you seemingly kow pretty much everything about computers." I did this after several of our friends were around that knew why we weren't talking anymore, just to rub his face in it. So I said, "Do we have a deal?" He just looked like a deer that got caught in the headlights. So I aksed again, "Do we have a deal, you know, you said in front of these people a few months ago that I was stupid, so here is your chance to prove it." He just smiled and had egg all over his face. All of our mutual freinds were just staring at him. I ended the relationship with, "You're a Fing punk. Don't ever talk to mme again." I haven't spoken to him since then, nor do I even acknowledge that he exists when I see him around.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses.
a b G Storage
December 2, 2007 5:42:30 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Let's say you hook up the drive to your external SATA II port and do an RAR file transfer of 1 GB to your internal hardrive, and then you repeat the transfer using USB 2.0.

SATAII will be clearly faster if you timed both.

One only has to look at the data rate chart to see at the beggining where 480Mb/s is clearly the bottleneck.


Megabits/Second vs Megabytes/Second, and the bus limits, sharing etc have a large impact on performance.
December 5, 2007 4:47:41 AM


apache_lives said:
Megabits/Second vs Megabytes/Second, and the bus limits, sharing etc have a large impact on performance.



Indeed bus and any other hardware limiting variable does have an impact. Tonight I transfered a 19GB ISO file from my Western Digital 500GB SATA 300 internal drive to my 160GB WD SATA 150 internal drive and got around 43MB/s.

Transferring from an external Toshiba 2.5 SATA 300 drive to an internal Toshiba SATA 300 drive (using a new HP Laptop) I achieved around 17MB/s using a USB cable. The external drive case is a HyperdriveSPACE model. I formatted the external drive from FAT to NTFS beforehand because of the FAT 4GB size limit.

So we can see even in a separate drive to drive internal transfer to a SATA 150 drive, the actual transfer rate of 187MB per second for SATA 150 is far below that in the real world. However, I'd of thought that it would be more than 50MB/s.

I used the Vista 64 transfer speed dialog box, which may or may not be accurate. But it reports in MB/s.

So in these two tests, the USB transfer about 1/3 as fast. Also, maximum transfer rates for a very good USB device is suppose to be a maximum of about 45MB second I think. This tells me that both USB and SATA transfer speeds are greatly limited by their peripheral hardware. Think about it. If we could get 40MB/s from our USB devices, we'd be transfering about as fast as our hard drives do now at SATA 100 (If calculations are fairly accurate above, which I admit something may be wrong).


December 5, 2007 2:34:46 PM

What you have to understand here is that there are individual limits on each component. The entire system will transfer data as fast as the slowest component involved.

The SATA-150 interface is rated to transfer data at 150MB/sec. That is NOT the actual transfer speed. That's the rating (i.e. the upper limit). If the hard drive cannot transfer data that fast (and no hard drive does), you will not get that speed.

It's just like a fire hose that's rated to carry 150 gallons per minute. If you hook that fire hose up to a pump that can only pump 60 gallons per minute, then that's all you get. The limit of the fire hose will never come into play until you get a much bigger pump.

USB has limits due to the protocol overhead. The best external USB2 drives can only transfer about 27 MB/sec, even though the theoretical limit for USB2 is 480Mb/sec (60 MB/sec). If your hard drive can to 70 MB/sec, and USB2's cabling can do 60MB/sec, but the protocol limits it to 27 MB/sec, then you only get 27 MB/sec.

Relating that to the fire hose analogy, this is like the fire hose being able to carry 60 GPM, the pump can pump 70 GPM, but there's valves at the ends of the hose than can only allow 27 GPM through. Thus, the whole system runs at 27 GPM.
June 10, 2008 3:48:53 PM

ever wonder why hard drives never have an internal USB connection? if USB is that fast, then they would have replaced PATA with USB long-time ago.
July 13, 2008 7:30:26 AM

I have an external hard drive with USB2 and eSATA connectors.

file 1,048,574kB

transfer using SATA link

external SATA to internal SATA 25 seconds
internal SATA to external SATA 25 using SATA link seconds

transfer using USB2 link

external SATA to internal SATA 45 seconds
internal SATA to external SATA 30 seconds

The times are accuratish (+/- 1 second)

The above demonstrates that eSATA is faster than USB2 to a significant degree in one direction and slightly faster in the other direction.
Actual speeds will be dependant on system component parameters.

Interestingly, simultaneously (almost) transferring a 1G file from A to B and a different 1G file from B to A using the USB2 link took 60 seconds despite the noticeable chatter of the hard drive mechanisms switching from read to write.

The above "tests" were performed with an Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ system

I then connected the external drive to an Intel Q6600 system using the USB2 link.
The recorded times for both directions were close to 33 seconds.

I could repeat the SATA link test but am waiting for a eSATA to SATA conversion cable.
September 8, 2008 1:35:00 AM

butthead said:
Hey thanks for everyone who replied, even though i haven't replied in over a year here. The test exteme tech did was perfect. that pretty much throws mister I know all about everything siilicon's argument under the bus. Actually, I took this information (I found it myself after posting) and put all the documentation, including my own tranfer time test using an internal SATA 300 and eSATA 300 in a Sans Digital enclodure vs an external USB drive (A Hyperdrive model that acieves around 16MBs sustained).

When I saw this guy I opened easily telling him that i know he doesn't want to talk about computers with me becsaue "I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm stupid according to you." Then I told him I had one proposition for him: "I'll give you 5000US dollars if I'm wrong about USB vs. SATA transfer speeds, and you give me 1000US dollars if your wrong, a 5-1 odds, since I'm stupid and you seemingly kow pretty much everything about computers." I did this after several of our friends were around that knew why we weren't talking anymore, just to rub his face in it. So I said, "Do we have a deal?" He just looked like a deer that got caught in the headlights. So I aksed again, "Do we have a deal, you know, you said in front of these people a few months ago that I was stupid, so here is your chance to prove it." He just smiled and had egg all over his face. All of our mutual freinds were just staring at him. I ended the relationship with, "You're a Fing punk. Don't ever talk to mme again." I haven't spoken to him since then, nor do I even acknowledge that he exists when I see him around.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses.



I really got a kick out of this thread, enough to register so I could give it a http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/message/ico...
September 30, 2008 4:48:25 PM

Regarding the maximum transfer rate on USB2.0:
The fastest read rates I have seen so far are in the range of 29 to 33 MByte/s from Harddisks or Memory Sticks. But ... read ...

People are talking about USB2.0 protocol limits and overhead. Does anybody know what is really going on here?

At 33 MByte/s, the USB2.0 bus is clearly NOT saturated, even accounting for protocol overhead.

I connected two Mass Storage Devices (Memory Stick or HDD) to the same port via a Hub, both reading at 31 MByte/s alone. Then I tested reading from both in parallel, everyone giving approx 22, the sum was 43.8 MByte/s.

I added a third Mass Storage Device (a little slower) and got a sum of 47.0 MByte/s.

That test clearly shows that the USB2.0 resources are not completely used by 1 device alone. The results are quite the same for Windows (XP, Vista) and Linux. I still do not see the point in USB protocol which causes this limit for a single device.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
March 9, 2009 11:05:49 PM

It really sounds like you have an involuntary (probably sexual) attraction to this guy, you want him to be the bottom to your improbable top. There you are the wee guy with the small stick and no CS degree ( which obviously makes you feel inferior as per the thread contents) sliding it in slow to his welcoming brown door. Trawling the web looking for evidence that you are right, so concerned about what mutual friends will say/think.

Why dont you just get past the innuendo and kiss the guy, mutter slowly into his soft eyes about your irrestible need to be one with his sphincter, and you guys can lie back exhausted later and play with a macbook pro as your mutual friends sms you incessantly with "SO HOW WAS IT?"

that's the truth as I see it, sorry for being honest.

March 14, 2009 2:34:58 AM

I'm running a real world test using linux to give you guys some numbers.

I'm doing a sector for sector copy of a 1 Terabyte SATA II western digital drive to another 1 Terabyte SATA II Western digital thru usb.

I'll post the results on my blog.



For the record I'm using a quad core Intel chip, Biostar board, Thermaltake USB docks (2 of them)

Right now it looks like drive to drive copy using:
ddrescue -n /dev/sdb /dev/sdc

it looks like it's going to take about 16 hours of transfer time (estimated at this point) to copy between the drives.

I'm going to try 2 different platforms and drives and give you guys some real world numbers here.

I use SATA II External Thermaltake drives for data transfer of striped array members for their ease of use and hook them up with ESATA as a rule.

It will be interesting to see the performance difference for the copy, of course copying from drive to drive amplifies difference in speed.

(My blog is at http://www.coredatarecovery.com)



Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 8, 2009 4:32:04 PM

Regardless of what anyone says, eSATA is extremely quicker in transfer rates than USB or Firewire.

I got fed up with trying to back up my 300GB hard drive through a USB port because it took 1 hour and 25 minutes. I bought an eSATA capable Western Digital Backup Drive and when I did the exact same back up through the eSATA connection it took 28 minutes!!! That's nearly 66% faster.
September 26, 2009 3:58:51 PM

RichPLS said:
USB is quick, Firewire quicker, IDE Fast, SATA Faster, SATAII Faster still...


USB 1.1 = Slowww
USB 2.0 = Faster, but still not THAT fast
IDE = Rated slower than Firewire
SATA = WAY Faster than IDE
SATA II = Even Faster still
eSATA = faster than USB2.0 or IDE

Why they don't include a power source for eSATA ports I don't know...
September 26, 2009 4:08:38 PM

athertop said:
Okay, I did a couple of tests tonight:
Test 1: Copying a single 5.7GB avi file between the Lacie and my internal Raptor comparing eSATA with USB2 both reading and writing to the Lacie.

Test 2: Copying 811 smaller files in 2 directories, totalling 4.07GB between the Lacie Drive and my internal Raptor comparing eSATA with USB both reading and writing to the Lacie.

Test 1 - eSATA Write 1m 32sec, Read 1m 31sec
Test 1 - USB2 Write 3m 10sec, Read 3m 39sec

Test 2 - eSATA Write 1m 00sec, Read 1m 20sec
Test 2 - USB2 Write 2m 57sec, Read 1m 51sec

Okay, the read/write (above) refer to the external Lacie drive. I used my internal Raptor drive (my temporary/swap/ PS scratch file drive) for this test as its the fastest drive I have.

I was surprised with the USB Test 2 on the read, as this was very fast compared to the other tests - not as fast as the eSATA, but a lot closer to eSATA compared with other tests.

I started off doing these tests using my internal RAID5 array (LSI Logic 300x8 hardware PCI-X controller) instead of the Raptor and soon found that whilst the read speed from the RAID5 was comparable with the Raptor, writing to the RAID5 was totally crap - I need to find out why I spent £290 on a hardware PCI-X SATA2 RAID controller and its this sloooow! Looking at Test 1 eSATA Read above - I did this using my RAID5 controller first and it took nearly 7 minutes - highlighting the RAID5 writing issue! Checking for new firmware on the LSI site now!

Anyway, it conclusively shows that eSATA is faster than USB2 in all cases above, using the same external drive. The biggest difference between eSATA and USB2 being seen when writing smaller files to the external drive - eSATA being approx 3 times faster. The least difference being the reading of smaller files from the external drives.

The onboard interfaces and other PC info are as below:

USB2 - integrated controller on Asus P5WDG2 WS Professional mobo
eSATA - Lacie PCI-X 300 4 port eSATA controller
OS: Win XP Pro x64
Mem: 4GB (4x1GB)

Hope this is useful.
Cheers, Paul
www.pjamedia.com



What allocation table did you use on the drives? That could make a significant difference since FAT32 and NTFS have much different cluster allocation sizes (so a text document with 1 letter in FAT32 might take up 64kb but only 4kb in NTFS). Granted this shouldn't affect the transfer speed, but if you are transferring files the files might take longer to transfer to a FAT32 formatted drive than an NTFS formatted drive.

Food for thought...
January 5, 2010 6:09:21 AM

I see this hasn't been revisited for awhile, so I hope somebody out there is watching. I seem to be getting, at best, 10MB/s transfer speeds from one internal SATA drive to another (both running 7200 rpm). I have tried a backup program, 7-zip, and just straight Windows copying. This is creating 10-hour sessions to back up 350 GB, and seems ridiculously slow compared to what you have written here. I have checked that write cacheing is enabled, and that the drives are in Ultra DMA 6. Can anyone suggest something I may be missing?

As an example: I just copied about 7 Gig from one 7200rpm internal SATA drive to another. The total time for the copy was 9 minutes and 29 seconds; this makes the transfer rate 12.75 MB/S (which is fast compared to what I have been getting).
January 5, 2010 8:18:33 AM

It's a bit early yet to be sure, but I found and ran the VBScript duplicated below. The author claims that Windows sometimes deactivated UltraDMA mode due to write errors, but that this deactivation may not show in system properties. After running this utility and rebooting, I copied a 6.2 GB file between the same two drives as before in 97 seconds. This is 63 MB/second, which is actually slightly quicker than the averages I have been researching.

I will see later if and how it affects the restore of the 350 GB copy I performed.

If this works, I intend to take out the dialog boxes and simply run this script from the batch file that HIP invokes upon suspend. It takes less than a second to run it.




' Visual Basic Script program to reset the DMA status of all ATA drives

' Copyright © 2006 Hans-Georg Michna

' Version 2007-04-04

' Works in Windows XP, probably also in Windows 2000 and NT.
' Does no harm if Windows version is incompatible.

If MsgBox("This program will now reset the DMA status of all ATA drives with Windows drivers." _
& vbNewline & "Windows will redetect the status after the next reboot, therefore this procedure" _
& vbNewline & "should be harmless.", _
vbOkCancel, "Program start message") _
= vbOk Then

RegPath = "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\"
ValueName1Master = "MasterIdDataChecksum"
ValueName1Slave = "SlaveIdDataChecksum"
ValueName2Master = "UserMasterDeviceTimingModeAllowed"
ValueName2Slave = "UserSlaveDeviceTimingModeAllowed"
ValueName3 = "ResetErrorCountersOnSuccess"
MessageText = "The following ATA channels have been reset:"
MessageTextLen0 = Len(MessageText)
ConsecutiveMisses = 0
Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

For i = 0 to 999
RegSubPath = Right("000" & i, 4) & "\"

' Master

Err.Clear
On Error Resume Next
WshShell.RegRead RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName1Master
errMaster = Err.Number
On Error Goto 0
If errMaster = 0 Then
On Error Resume Next
WshShell.RegDelete RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName1Master
WshShell.RegDelete RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName2Master
On Error Goto 0
MessageText = MessageText & vbNewLine & "Master"
End If

' Slave

Err.Clear
On Error Resume Next
WshShell.RegRead RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName1Slave
errSlave = Err.Number
On Error Goto 0
If errSlave = 0 Then
On Error Resume Next
WshShell.RegDelete RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName1Slave
WshShell.RegDelete RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName2Slave
On Error Goto 0
If errMaster = 0 Then
MessageText = MessageText & " and "
Else
MessageText = MessageText & vbNewLine
End If
MessageText = MessageText & "Slave"
End If

If errMaster = 0 Or errSlave = 0 Then
On Error Resume Next
WshShell.RegWrite RegPath & RegSubPath & ValueName3, 1, "REG_DWORD"
On Error Goto 0
ChannelName = "unnamed channel " & Left(RegSubPath, 4)
On Error Resume Next
ChannelName = WshShell.RegRead(RegPath & RegSubPath & "DriverDesc")
On Error Goto 0
MessageText = MessageText & " of " & ChannelName & ";"
ConsecutiveMisses = 0
Else
ConsecutiveMisses = ConsecutiveMisses + 1
If ConsecutiveMisses >= 32 Then Exit For ' Don't search unnecessarily long.
End If
Next ' i

If Len(MessageText) <= MessageTextLen0 Then
MessageText = "No resettable ATA channels with Windows drivers found. Nothing changed."
Else
MessageText = MessageText & vbNewline _
& "Please reboot now to reset and redetect the DMA status."
End If

MsgBox MessageText, vbOkOnly, "Program finished normally"

End If ' MsgBox(...) = vbOk

' End of Visual Basic Script program
July 14, 2010 1:32:36 PM

Thanks a lot !

after running the vbs, before running the script 4.2 Gb data copy took aprx. 10 Min and after appx 1 min !!

I've used it on a windows home server (w2k3 business edition)

Rogier
July 15, 2010 9:49:26 PM

This is a nice thread. I had the same issue as the guy that started this thread, and it was difficult to find good benchmarking to convince people what should be bought.

So... in 2010, which Hard Drive transfers data the fastest? And is there anything new coming down the road?

I'm about to build a new comp and am putting together my list of parts. What hard drive should i get?
August 5, 2010 4:31:20 PM

Whew!!!!!!!! can't thank enough everyone who responded, your time, commitments to helping, knowledge, I appreciate like you'll never know, whichever connections on each pc, I'll use the fastest methods in accordance with your help responses. God bless all of you, best wishes for cont'd success (55 yr old mom)


(working on a legal deadline for aug 10 2010, 2 towers, 1 laptop, desktop & wand scanners, internet research, countless law books, rules, requirements, legal software, anything to speed up accomplishing successfully, am in federal appeal, pro-se, doing order from Amazon file transfer speeds are my present needs, found you via my google search, in awe all of you, education, experience, thank you! don't have time to edit my typos & grammar, back to work, had done benchmark reviews yesterday, cpu speeds, cpus overheating/coolest...)
August 11, 2010 1:56:24 PM

butthead said:
Yeah that will definitely convince a person who has their Masters Degree in CS from University of St. Luois.

Quote:
USB is quick, Firewire quicker, IDE Fast, SATA Faster, SATAII Faster still...


lol, which is why I get so upset when people think that CE is the same as CS, and more so when somebody confuses me as an EE for a CS.
August 25, 2010 4:52:25 AM

Quote:
Regardless of what anyone says, eSATA is extremely quicker in transfer rates than USB or Firewire.

I got fed up with trying to back up my 300GB hard drive through a USB port because it took 1 hour and 25 minutes. I bought an eSATA capable Western Digital Backup Drive and when I did the exact same back up through the eSATA connection it took 28 minutes!!! That's nearly 66% faster.

I see why you signed in as "Anonymous"!
You don't need sata connections ... What you really need is ... a "biological CPU" upgrade!
So from 1 1/2 hours to 1/2 hour is ... "nearly" 66% faster? What about 3 times or "nearly" 300% faster?

I used to have this misconception that computer nerds were good at math.
But I have been "cured" for a few years now!

And pardon me for rounding your quoted times to 1/2 hours. I am not Boole either :sol:  :-)
August 30, 2010 2:11:21 PM

I think everyone who reads this will know 'exactly' who needs the 'upgrade' and who is 'not' good at math. Do your sums before 1. being sarcastic, and 2. trying to seem superior.

30mins with an increase of 100% = 60mins

so you think that 30mins with an increase of 300% is what exactly ??
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2010 5:18:43 AM

When comparing data typically we assign them order based on chronology. In this case the first test took 1.5 hours. That's what we will call 100%. We then consider the second (and subsequent) tests(s). These will be assigned percentages based on their proportional improvement. Thus: Since 1/2 hour to complete the task is 3 times faster than the original speed, the task is completed at a rate of 300%. 45 minutes would be a rate of 200% and so on.

Although you are correct in noting that the second test observes an increase of 200%, we generally look past a slightly poor choice of words in order to avoid "2. trying to seem superior."

All the best.

tanco said:
I think everyone who reads this will know 'exactly' who needs the 'upgrade' and who is 'not' good at math. Do your sums before 1. being sarcastic, and 2. trying to seem superior.

30mins with an increase of 100% = 60mins

so you think that 30mins with an increase of 300% is what exactly ??

Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 19, 2010 3:28:59 PM

HD Tune Pro is a program for measuring the performance of hard drives.

I downloaded a free copy (it's free for about 2 wks) and measured some external Western Digital hard drives.

These two WD drives were purchased as "internal drives" then mounted in an enclosure that contains a power supply and has eSATA connectors on the back to connect up the drives.

see: http://www.cooldrives.com/index.php/midudrnasaen.html

Adding a passive card slot bracket device that just has two eSATA connectors on it that goes to two standard internal SATA cables you plug into available SATA ports on your motherboard, I installed the two drives so that they are seen by the computer as just two more internal drives.

So now the BIOS sees three drives:

The original (boot) drive: Samsung HD160JJ/P
External Drive 1: WDC WD1001FALS-00J7B
External Drive 2: WDC3200AAKS-00G3A

Using HD Tune Pro and the "fast test" options) the results are as follows:

The original (boot) drive: Samsung HD160JJ/P (160 GB)
47.7 MB/s

External Drive 1: WDC WD1001FALS-00J7B (1TB Caviar Black)
89.0 MB/s

External Drive 2: WDC3200AAKS-00G3A (320GB Caviar Blue)
97.5 MB/s

I also have a USB Vantec drive adapter but I haven't tried using it for comparison yet.

October 22, 2010 9:12:23 PM

Well just to add in my real time experience in last two days.

asus p5kc mother board with a sata connectors 7200.11 seagate 500gb drive and a wd20ears 2TB drive (external western digital green drive with esata/usb connection)

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=773
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c89ef14...

So from using usb transfer, I picked up 20mb/s+ while using little bit of pc. (156 gb transfer)
and as i surf tom's forum, I am getting 76mb/s transfer from esata using same drives and settings. (120 gb transfer)

As you will notice, result is not from small transfers.

Now usb vs esata is a major difference if you ask me. Are you sure he was talking about the transfer speed and not disk rev?
November 2, 2010 6:35:28 PM

tanco said:
I think everyone who reads this will know 'exactly' who needs the 'upgrade' and who is 'not' good at math. Do your sums before 1. being sarcastic, and 2. trying to seem superior.

30mins with an increase of 100% = 60mins

so you think that 30mins with an increase of 300% is what exactly ??



Aaah ... You are funny!
I (really) wasn't trying to "seem" superior when I wrote the original message.
Nor did I dream that I would keep laughing about it so many weeks later.

Without trying to be mean: before we only knew that "tanco" was not very good at math (which in any case is not a sin).
Now we all know that he will most probably never learn!
One will think that after being called to order one will check twice before exposing himself to the "public" again...
Instead he had a belligerent and thoroughly (again) erroneous rebuttal so it is clear that not everything is bad: at least we know tanco is a very daring lad.

I'll explain it so no one needs to upgrade their pretty little CPUs:

1.- when a NFL runner runs the same distance as his colleague in 1/3 of the time in English ones says that the quarterback run three times faster.

2.- if you grandma drives 50 miles in 1 + 1/2 hours (thus at 33.33 miles per hour) and then you (daring devil) drive the same distance in 1/2 hour (thus at 100 miles per hour) then you drove 3 times faster than grandma (but is no biggie ... home we drive much faster but in kilometers).

Please do not read this message as an attack to tanco. It is not.
It is instead meant to have a laugh (a bit at his expense... Sorry!) and to defend the quality of all languages: linguistic or mathematical.

We should all be a bit more careful when expressing ourselves... If users like "tanco" keep assaulting the languages we have and further insisting on their assault in no time we will simply not understand each other in English, math or any other language. When I read his original comment I had no idea of how fast he thought the drive was!

The greatness of the Internet is that anyone can write in it.
The trouble with the Internet is that anyone can write in it: It is indeed very democratic but it is reducing everything to the smallest common denominator...

Have a great one. Everyone! Boolean or Not!
November 22, 2010 7:44:19 AM

Actually 3Gb per second... sound so fast... do the maths
1024*1024*1024*3 bits per sec, divide by 8 to get bytes per second divide that by 1024*1024 to get Megabytes per sec so you
get 1024*1024*1024*3
--------------------------
8*1024*1024

some of the 1024's cancel to give 1024*3/8 = 384 MegaBytes per second...

its supposedly faster than IDE at 100 MegaBytes per second, though I am not sure how less pins can
actually be any faster as surely there is some sort of "packet" shuffling lag, maybe its 384 Megabytes from there to the "packet-shuffling" chip that will be integrated into it...

I suppose the chip controllers for the new SATA drives may respond quicker or run at a higher frequency than the older IDE hard drives, but that would suggest it was a case of upgrading the chips on newer IDE
drives to far outstrip this latest rival...

in short... I don't know either, I do know I have only ever had one SATA drive and it is now uselesss having gone the way of Casper of some mysterious ailment or other, so Im not in the best of moods with it, and when installed it seemed to run slower than the currently installed 40Gb IDE drive (just a temporary until I get a larger one)... and I mean slower, like a reboot mighht hitch the machine for 20 odd minutes, whereas now its less than 1 minute... obviously software must of played some role in that, but
even afetr removing "heavy" anti-viruses and anything else starting at boot time with the SATA it would take 10 minutes to boot, whereas like I said on the IDE drive it takes less than a minute... to add insult to injury for SATA, taht SATA was 160Gb, some 4 and a half times the capacity of this IDE... go figure that then?

Personally I'd be dubious of the numbers ANYWAY... remember they are trying to out do rivals and sell you a product, probably cheaper in some way to produce than its chief rivals, maybe thats the feature not the
actual performance.
November 22, 2010 7:47:53 AM

Sorry about the spelling mistakes, no I'm not dyslexic, just breaking in a new keyboard...
November 22, 2010 7:59:27 AM

I do remember some years ago that it was discussed that RAID was laggy compared to IDE, but can't think where... and IDE was still the far superior system
for internal drives due to its larger and more direct interface to the motherboard...
but that was a while ago like I said...
November 22, 2010 8:16:06 AM

Also I'd be dubious of anyone and I mean ANYONE who says SATA runs cooler, the one I was forced to remove was HOT... at around well I'd guess 40 or 50 degrees Celcius... now I don't know much but I DO know that I've NEVER experience that with IDE... the one now installed is nowhere near the temperature, even in exactly the same place in the machine.

I do know that even in my humble real-world experiences, or perhaps because of them, that when I see what is said about SATA and compare it to what I have experienced their seems to be more than just read/write/ redundancy /latency numbers that don't add up... there seems to be to me at least a whole world of absolute BS around them...
November 22, 2010 9:49:39 AM

Oh as for EM interference... less pins, more data... hmmmhigher frequency then... that means greater rate of change of electric field... correct my schoolboy A level physics if its wrong, after all its been some years... but doesn;t that lead to GREATER electromagnetic fields...

One bonus is the thin power leads have less internal resistance (moderately) so reduce draw on power supplies... however the sh*tty little plastic connectors are easier to damage as you can well imagine and far harder to then rectify...

for those wondering at their own personal findings of 34 or 43Mb/sec, they do know there is a jumper you have to set to achieve the maximum speed of the drive, quite often this is not done by the manufacturers of pre-built machines and I suspect its not just omitted for fun... be dubious about setting the jumper, I ain't gonna say the system won't cope with it, maybe it will, but if it couldn;t then you'd have a serious problem...

As for connectors... I have ranted elsewhere on petty pretty little plastic connectors proliferating every corner and recess of our manly domain, at least if the IDE power pins splayed you could do the many thing and squeeze em in with a screwdriver...

Now 'cos of the design you'd probably have to cut one off somewhere else and solder it on with a lot of patience and equal amount of carefully wrapping the individual wires with insulating tape (crude but effective)



OR you'd have to remove it inside the power supply and solder on a new one there.

OR you'd have to buy a new power supply...

what a jip! the old IDE connectors you could actually yank pins from other connectors and force them into replace other ones and all sorts... its a right bloody con I tell ya...

Same with mobile phones... what was wrong with those single slide-in pin power supplies... ya know the ones where you got variable sizes, looked not unlike speaker sockets... but you could get five different sized chargers on on mains fed charger... often with variable ampage and voltage outputs at the click of a switch and all sorts... why now do we endure the easily damaged pretty crap often unique to the phone brand and make...

The protest march begins: Bring back MANLY connectors for MANLY things... sorry off on one.
November 22, 2010 10:04:35 AM

Actually one last note on comments on SATA over IDE, the thinner power leads do as they say have lower internal resistance, however unless the voltage is supstantially lower... well we all know what voltage does over thinner wires don't we... well we should, phyyiscs would tell you that its gonna result in greater heat output over the surface area of the individual wires... you only have to look at a an old fashioned filament light bulb or understand the principles of how a fuse blows when it draws greater ampage through the fine wire and burns out to get the idea to the full extent... in short any claim that it results in cooler leads is an absolute out and out crock... it doesn't even take a genius to see it, just a little time to actual think about it....

so you have dainty plastic connectors and a higher temperature... I'd imagine that slow expansion of said connectors will NOT be an uncommon fault in years to come...
November 22, 2010 10:14:47 AM

Sorry should use the proper term, you have pretty thermo-plastic connectors... ie they will be the plastic that gets soft as temperature increases (the common one) as opposed to thermo-setting-plastics which may handle it ok...

failing that he says somewhat sarcastically, cos yes I can be... may I suggest bakelite! chuckle.
!