Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do I sometimes have slow transfers from my USB 2 card ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 23, 2005 11:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Zio card reader, connected to a USB 2 port on my computer,
and use it to read Smartmedia cards.

90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.

But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.

I don't have spyware on my computer, and generally, no other
applications are running on the computer during the transfer. Does
this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else, and what might
the cause be?
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:07:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim wrote:

> Does this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else,
> and what might the cause be?

If none of the other suggestions are the cause of your slow
transfer rate, it could be the result of too many files per folder.
This shouldn't be a problem with copying pictures taken by a camera,
since all of the cameras I've seen so far limit the number of
pictures in a folder/directory to 100. But if you're dealing with
more than several hundred files per folder, at some point the
transfer rate will appear to suddenly bog down. It's not actually
the copying speed slowing down, but appears to be due to the OS
taking far longer to process directory entries. This can be easily
tested without having to copy any files if you open a DOS window and
typing "DIR <Enter>", assuming your're using an OS that allows DOS
windows. If the speed of the scrolling filenames suddenly slows
down drastically, that folder has more directory entries that the OS
can conveniently handle.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:10:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim wrote:
>
>
>>Does this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else,
>>and what might the cause be?
>
>
> If none of the other suggestions are the cause of your slow
> transfer rate, it could be the result of too many files per folder.
> This shouldn't be a problem with copying pictures taken by a camera,
> since all of the cameras I've seen so far limit the number of
> pictures in a folder/directory to 100. But if you're dealing with
> more than several hundred files per folder, at some point the
> transfer rate will appear to suddenly bog down. It's not actually
> the copying speed slowing down, but appears to be due to the OS
> taking far longer to process directory entries. This can be easily
> tested without having to copy any files if you open a DOS window and
> typing "DIR <Enter>", assuming your're using an OS that allows DOS
> windows. If the speed of the scrolling filenames suddenly slows
> down drastically, that folder has more directory entries that the OS
> can conveniently handle.
>

Humm. This limit doesn't apply to Kodak cameras. I had over 250 in my
DX6440 pictures directory last vacation.
Note that in WinXP, you can raise the normal number of files the OS
expects in a folder....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:10:55 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Humm. This limit doesn't apply to Kodak cameras. I had over 250 in my
> DX6440 pictures directory last vacation.

Canon's S10 and S20 create a new folder each time the old one
reaches 100 files. I'm not even sure that it needs to store 100
files in a folder before it creates a new one. It may be based on
the incremented filenames, so if you delete a few files on the
camera . . . I haven't taken enough pictures yet with my newer Fuji
to know for sure, but it appears that its limit is probably 1000
files per folder. This is easily 2 or 3 times too many files for my
computer to handle without gagging, so I don't plan to let old
pictures accumulate on the card very long.


> Note that in WinXP, you can raise the normal number of files
> the OS expects in a folder....

Haven't used XP yet. For that matter I haven't installed
installed the Win2k that I bought several years ago. I think it
would overly tax if not offend my computer's hardware which jost
barely tolerates its elderly Win95. :)  Do you know what XP's
default is for the "number of files the OS expects in a folder"? I
imagine that if set too low or too high performance or resources
might suffer. It would be useful if this number could be customized
for different drives or folders.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 6:27:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim wrote:

> 90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
> 60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>
> But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
> take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.

Is there any chance that when it's moving data quickly, that the
JPGs are in multiple directories and when it's moving data slowly
the files are in fewer or only one folder?
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:38:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gkl341lus5qhm5tbqflht03joq3jph8dcc@4ax.com>,
Tim <tim@invalidtim.invalidcom> wrote:

> I have a Zio card reader, connected to a USB 2 port on my computer,
> and use it to read Smartmedia cards.
>
> 90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
> 60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>
> But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
> take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.
>
> I don't have spyware on my computer, and generally, no other
> applications are running on the computer during the transfer. Does
> this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else, and what might
> the cause be?

It could be the OS interpreting the card reader wrongly. Try canceling
the download and starting again.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 7:38:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy wrote:
> In article <gkl341lus5qhm5tbqflht03joq3jph8dcc@4ax.com>,
> Tim <tim@invalidtim.invalidcom> wrote:
>
>
>>I have a Zio card reader, connected to a USB 2 port on my computer,
>>and use it to read Smartmedia cards.
>>
>>90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
>>60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>>
>>But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
>>take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.
>>
>>I don't have spyware on my computer, and generally, no other
>>applications are running on the computer during the transfer. Does
>>this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else, and what might
>>the cause be?
>
>
> It could be the OS interpreting the card reader wrongly. Try canceling
> the download and starting again.

It could also be that some other device has been used on the USB 2.0
interface at the same time, or just before, and set the speed down to
USB 1.1 rates. USB will go at the rate of the slowest device on the
chain....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 24, 2005 9:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I appreciate everyone's answers so far. But I'm still perplexed.

I just tried transferring some pictures that I'd let build up on my
card (a Smartmedia card in an Olympus camera). There are 93 jpg
files, encompassing 52 meg of data according to Windows. It took 45
seconds to transfer the data to my PC. If we're talking 8 bits/byte,
that's a rate of roughly 9.7 mbps (the actual size of the files is
54,000,000 bytes, roughly.

As for some of the suggestions that have been offered:

Spyware: Doubtful. I run Ad-aware and Spybot, both updated, twice a
week, they're always clean. Updated NAV 2004 run twice a week, always
clean. I just ran hijackthis and got what looked to me to be normal
results.

Fragmentation: Also doubtful. I have a relatively new hard drive with
50 free gigs that have never had data on them.

Other processes claiming the bus: Tougher to say. On my USB 2 ports,
I have:

- an unterminated camera cable, that I never bothered to remove when I
added the card reader
- a printer (its queue is empty)
- the card reader
- an empty port

Most importantly, please understand that I have transferred photos
from the reader, connected to its current port, at the high expected
rate of speed. Things seem jinxed now though; I can't make the thing
work at the high speed any more. But it HAS worked before.

Is there a way to reset the port? Or are there new drivers I can
download for it? The USB card's maker didn't provide drivers; the one
I'm using I downloaded from Microsoft's site. It's version 5.1.2600.0
dated 6/1/2001.
March 24, 2005 9:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

USB is finisky in win 2000, probably not at all happy in win 95. It does
all sorts of unpredictable things.

Tim wrote:

> I appreciate everyone's answers so far. But I'm still perplexed.
>
> I just tried transferring some pictures that I'd let build up on my
> card (a Smartmedia card in an Olympus camera). There are 93 jpg
> files, encompassing 52 meg of data according to Windows. It took 45
> seconds to transfer the data to my PC. If we're talking 8 bits/byte,
> that's a rate of roughly 9.7 mbps (the actual size of the files is
> 54,000,000 bytes, roughly.
>
> As for some of the suggestions that have been offered:
>
> Spyware: Doubtful. I run Ad-aware and Spybot, both updated, twice a
> week, they're always clean. Updated NAV 2004 run twice a week, always
> clean. I just ran hijackthis and got what looked to me to be normal
> results.
>
> Fragmentation: Also doubtful. I have a relatively new hard drive with
> 50 free gigs that have never had data on them.
>
> Other processes claiming the bus: Tougher to say. On my USB 2 ports,
> I have:
>
> - an unterminated camera cable, that I never bothered to remove when I
> added the card reader
> - a printer (its queue is empty)
> - the card reader
> - an empty port
>
> Most importantly, please understand that I have transferred photos
> from the reader, connected to its current port, at the high expected
> rate of speed. Things seem jinxed now though; I can't make the thing
> work at the high speed any more. But it HAS worked before.
>
> Is there a way to reset the port? Or are there new drivers I can
> download for it? The USB card's maker didn't provide drivers; the one
> I'm using I downloaded from Microsoft's site. It's version 5.1.2600.0
> dated 6/1/2001.
March 24, 2005 10:49:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I must have a messed up USB card.

Just wondering if rearranging the cables on the card would improve
anything, I tried that. As it turns out, of the four ports on the
card, the only port that works for the reader is the leftmost one as
I'm looking at the back of the computer. Connecting it to any of the
other ports gives me a nasty-looking warning about unplugging a USB
device (despite the fact that I am unplugging nothing) whenever I try
to copy files from the card.

And I can't get the reader to transfer faster than 45 seconds for 54
megs of files, even on that port.

The other devices connected to the ports on the card all seem to
function fine.

I tried going into safe mode and uninstalling the card, then
restarting and reinstalling the drivers. I did find a more recent
driver than I'd been using, but it didn't make a bit of difference.

Guess it's time for a replacement card, unless someone has a better
idea.
March 25, 2005 3:03:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tim wrote:

> 52 meg of data took 45
> seconds to transfer

You lucky dog. Until I upgrade my computer I've been putting the card from my good
camera (software for which requires W98se, and I've got W98) into a lesser camera
that will talk to my OS. Until a few days ago I never transferred more than about 100
MB at a time and didn't pay much attention to the speed. Finally deciding to transfer
files from a notebook to the PC I put about 110 8MB Raw files on a 1 gig card,
swapped the card to the camera, and started the transfer. Windows started by telling
me it was going to take about 90 minutes. Not a problem as I have other things to do
and I'm not in a rush. I checked back now and again, and when it was about 2/3 done
the time remaining suddenly jumped back to about 90 minutes for the remaining 300 MB
+/-. I suppose it could be that the camera was at fault, but I'm figuring it was some
OS issue or another app taking resources.

Running Norton AV might offer an explanation, especially if you're running
Systemworks. Norton is a major resource hog when it does anything more than lurk
in the background. Whenever live update runs my whole machine slows down dramaticaly.
When Norton AV is doing a full system check even Freecell gets clunky.

> Fragmentation: Also doubtful. I have a relatively new hard drive with
> 50 free gigs that have never had data on them.

New data can be written to the "front" of the drive, as it were, regardless of how
much free space is at the back of the drive. What I've read in the last couple of
years, though, says fragmentation isn't a real problem anyway (unless you sell
defragging software), especially with new high speed drives.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
March 25, 2005 7:10:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:27:10 -0500, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim wrote:
>
>> 90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
>> 60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>>
>> But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
>> take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.
>
> Is there any chance that when it's moving data quickly, that the
>JPGs are in multiple directories and when it's moving data slowly
>the files are in fewer or only one folder?

Same thing every time: all source jpgs are in one directory, and
always being moved to one directory.
March 31, 2005 4:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,24hoursupport.helpdesk (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim <tim@invalidtim.invalidcom>
wrote:

>I have a Zio card reader, connected to a USB 2 port on my computer,
>and use it to read Smartmedia cards.
>
>90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
>60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>
>But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
>take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.
>
>I don't have spyware on my computer, and generally, no other
>applications are running on the computer during the transfer. Does
>this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else, and what might
>the cause be?

Based on successfully moving data at a USB 2 rate from a camera to the
PC, via a port with which my reader failed to work, I went to return
the reader today. While returning it, I struck up a conversation with
a tech, who said that it sounded like the reader wasn't getting enough
power.

Which is a funny thing, because I upgraded much of my computer a
couple months ago, but was unable to replace its 135-watt power supply
with a 350 watt one that came with the new case I bought (Dell
motherboard needs a special adapter connector to connect to the new
PS).

I had *not* mentioned the power supply to the tech, he was just
thinking out loud. So he persuaded me to put down the Belkin reader I
had in my hand and keep the Zio Dazzle reader, at least until I've put
the 350 watt power supply in, something I'm looking to do in the next
week.

My question is: How likely is it that the reason my reader fails to
work in three of my four USB ports, and generally only transfers data
at the USB 1.1 rate (port and reader are 2.0) when it works with the
fourth port, is because my 135 watt power supply is inadequate?
March 31, 2005 6:24:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,24hoursupport.helpdesk (More info?)

Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:54:14 GMT, Tim <tim@invalidtim.invalidcom>
> wrote:
>
>> I have a Zio card reader, connected to a USB 2 port on my computer,
>> and use it to read Smartmedia cards.
>>
>> 90% of the time, it moves the data FAST. I'm guessing, but probably
>> 60 megs of jpg data move in ten seconds or so.
>>
>> But 10% of the time, it's like it's moving at USB 1 speeds. It might
>> take 3-4 minutes to move 60 megs.
>>
>> I don't have spyware on my computer, and generally, no other
>> applications are running on the computer during the transfer. Does
>> this occasional slow transfer happen to anyone else, and what might
>> the cause be?
>
> Based on successfully moving data at a USB 2 rate from a camera to the
> PC, via a port with which my reader failed to work, I went to return
> the reader today. While returning it, I struck up a conversation with
> a tech, who said that it sounded like the reader wasn't getting enough
> power.
>
> Which is a funny thing, because I upgraded much of my computer a
> couple months ago, but was unable to replace its 135-watt power supply
> with a 350 watt one that came with the new case I bought (Dell
> motherboard needs a special adapter connector to connect to the new
> PS).
>
> I had *not* mentioned the power supply to the tech, he was just
> thinking out loud. So he persuaded me to put down the Belkin reader I
> had in my hand and keep the Zio Dazzle reader, at least until I've put
> the 350 watt power supply in, something I'm looking to do in the next
> week.
>
> My question is: How likely is it that the reason my reader fails to
> work in three of my four USB ports, and generally only transfers data
> at the USB 1.1 rate (port and reader are 2.0) when it works with the
> fourth port, is because my 135 watt power supply is inadequate?

I would have thought it more likely that something else is taking bandwidth
on the same USB controller.
!