Faster USB 3.0 Performance: Examining UASP And Turbo Mode
Tags:
- Performance
- USB3
Last response: in Reviews comments
acku
June 20, 2012 4:06:03 AM
Why is it that an interface that operates at 5 Gb/s never reaches corresponding transfer rates? Our investigation reveals that not all USB 3.0-based solutions are created equal, and we explore two technologies used to bolster the performance of USB 3.0.
Faster USB 3.0 Performance: Examining UASP And Turbo Mode : Read more
Faster USB 3.0 Performance: Examining UASP And Turbo Mode : Read more
More about : faster usb performance examining uasp turbo mode
One thing with USB is that it was never designed for massive large data thoroghputs like eHDDs and larger flash drives. And while its nice to have a faster USB standard like USB 3.0, the main idea behind USB, a single connector for peripherals like mice, KB and printer, was designed when eHDDs were almost non existent.
Firewire was designed more with eHDDs and the such in mind and had better encoding and protocols in place to support eHDDs and such.
Even better is Thunderbolt which has shown the ability to reach top end speeds of the attached device:
http://www.macnn.com/reviews/elgato-thunderbolt-ssd.htm...
While its a Mac based drive you can clearly see that as the size goes up (4KB->1024KB), the speed goes up which makes sense. A 4GB file will have a better average transfer rate than a 4MB file on USB, eSATA or TB. As well, it reaches almost 300MB/s read and write which is just as fast as a SATA 3Gbps SSD goes. I imagine if the drive had a better controller (say current Sandforce) it could reach 500MB/s (SATA 6Gbps speeds easily since the interface was designed with this in mind.
So while USB 3.0 is great for where I work and such, as a lot of customers may not be able to afford eSATA or TB devices or have those on their PC, its not going to be able to keep up with demands of people who use multiple large eHDDs for data storage and thats where eSATA 6Gbps and TB will come into play. I imagine USB might just become a smaller part unless the reengineer the protocols and encoding but that might also kill any backwards compatibility it has currently.
Firewire was designed more with eHDDs and the such in mind and had better encoding and protocols in place to support eHDDs and such.
Even better is Thunderbolt which has shown the ability to reach top end speeds of the attached device:
http://www.macnn.com/reviews/elgato-thunderbolt-ssd.htm...
While its a Mac based drive you can clearly see that as the size goes up (4KB->1024KB), the speed goes up which makes sense. A 4GB file will have a better average transfer rate than a 4MB file on USB, eSATA or TB. As well, it reaches almost 300MB/s read and write which is just as fast as a SATA 3Gbps SSD goes. I imagine if the drive had a better controller (say current Sandforce) it could reach 500MB/s (SATA 6Gbps speeds easily since the interface was designed with this in mind.
So while USB 3.0 is great for where I work and such, as a lot of customers may not be able to afford eSATA or TB devices or have those on their PC, its not going to be able to keep up with demands of people who use multiple large eHDDs for data storage and thats where eSATA 6Gbps and TB will come into play. I imagine USB might just become a smaller part unless the reengineer the protocols and encoding but that might also kill any backwards compatibility it has currently.
Score
2
forestie
June 20, 2012 5:59:34 AM
Overall, good article.
However, it seems the author didn't look very far regarding USB attached SCSI protocol on Linux: a simple Google search: "uas protocol usb attached scsi linux" gives the first link: "http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/USB_UAS.html", which teaches us that UAS support is available since Linux kernel 2.6.37 and enabled by option "CONFIG_USB_UAS".
I suppose it is a safe bet to assume that most modern distributions ship with this option enabled, as is often the case with Linux distributions; they tend to provide almost all the kernel modules "just in case".
However, it seems the author didn't look very far regarding USB attached SCSI protocol on Linux: a simple Google search: "uas protocol usb attached scsi linux" gives the first link: "http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/USB_UAS.html", which teaches us that UAS support is available since Linux kernel 2.6.37 and enabled by option "CONFIG_USB_UAS".
I suppose it is a safe bet to assume that most modern distributions ship with this option enabled, as is often the case with Linux distributions; they tend to provide almost all the kernel modules "just in case".
Score
9
Related resources
- Would moving Windows 8 to a USB 3.0 stick boot faster & improve performance? - Forum
- "this device can perform faster if you connect it to a super speed USB 3.0 - Forum
- Device can perform faster appears even when I plug in usb3.0 to the usb3.0 port. - Forum
- Another "This device can perform faster...USB 3.0" - Forum
- nce again..."This device can perform faster...USB 3.0" - Forum
forestie
June 20, 2012 6:01:40 AM
Score
0
merikafyeah
June 20, 2012 8:38:53 AM
This article says that the Syba SD-PEX20122 card has ASM1042 controller hardware, yet Syba's site and everywhere else says that this card is based on "VLI VL80x USB 3.0 Host Controller IC". Is this referring to something else, or has Syba switched to a different controller since the time this article was written?
EDIT: Nevermind, the article linked to the wrong card but referenced the correct model number. The model referenced was SD-PEX20112, which does include the ASM1042 controller. The model the link sends you to is SD-PEX20122, which has the VLI VL80x chipset.
This is the correct link: Syba SD-PEX20112
Recap:
Syba SD-PEX20112: Based on Asmedia ASM1042 USB 3.0 Host Controller IC
Syba SD-PEX20122: Based on VLI VL80x USB 3.0 Host Controller IC
(This model includes a 20-pin header for up to 2(two) additional external USB 3.0 connectors on newer cases which can be used simultaneously with the rear connectors, so this is technically a 4-port card and is the better deal IMO, but I digress.)
P.S. I noticed another typo on page 4:
BTW, very interesting article. USB is well underway to being one of two "be-all-end-all" connectors for consumer tech of the future. The second of course, being HDBaseT. USB is so ubiquitous that it can't be overtaken. However, the same cannot be said for FireWire/eSATA/Thunderbolt/HDMI/DVI etc, which have all been made obsolete by the existence of HDBaseT. Once HDBT penetrates the market, only USB will stand a chance at remaining relevant.
EDIT: Nevermind, the article linked to the wrong card but referenced the correct model number. The model referenced was SD-PEX20112, which does include the ASM1042 controller. The model the link sends you to is SD-PEX20122, which has the VLI VL80x chipset.
This is the correct link: Syba SD-PEX20112
Recap:
Syba SD-PEX20112: Based on Asmedia ASM1042 USB 3.0 Host Controller IC
Syba SD-PEX20122: Based on VLI VL80x USB 3.0 Host Controller IC
(This model includes a 20-pin header for up to 2(two) additional external USB 3.0 connectors on newer cases which can be used simultaneously with the rear connectors, so this is technically a 4-port card and is the better deal IMO, but I digress.)
P.S. I noticed another typo on page 4:
Quote:
However, Asus is alone in supporting UAS in Windows 7, and it does so through by licensing MCCI's ExpressDisk UASP Driver.BTW, very interesting article. USB is well underway to being one of two "be-all-end-all" connectors for consumer tech of the future. The second of course, being HDBaseT. USB is so ubiquitous that it can't be overtaken. However, the same cannot be said for FireWire/eSATA/Thunderbolt/HDMI/DVI etc, which have all been made obsolete by the existence of HDBaseT. Once HDBT penetrates the market, only USB will stand a chance at remaining relevant.
Score
0
acku
June 20, 2012 10:08:40 AM
merikafyeahThis article says that the Syba SD-PEX20122 card has ASM1042 controller hardware, yet Syba's site and everywhere else says that this card is based on "VLI VL80x USB 3.0 Host Controller IC". Is this referring to something else, or has Syba switched to a different controller since the time this article was written?EDIT: Nevermind, the article linked to the wrong card but referenced the correct model number. The model referenced was SD-PEX20112, which does include the ASM1042 controller. The model the link sends you to is SD-PEX20122, which has the VLI VL80x chipset.This is the correct link: Syba SD-PEX20112Recap:Syba SD-PEX20112: Based on Asmedia ASM1042 USB 3.0 Host Controller ICSyba SD-PEX20122: Based on VLI VL80x USB 3.0 Host Controller IC
Sorry for the confusion. We made a typo. It happens to us all.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
Score
2
A Bad Day
June 20, 2012 11:07:14 AM
sickbyreputation
June 20, 2012 1:16:49 PM
TeraMedia
June 20, 2012 2:51:02 PM
Outstanding article. This is the kind of information that can help make the difference between an informed purchase and a regrettable one, and keeps the manufacturers innovating. I hadn't even heard of UASP, but now I know to look at the specs before I buy any USB 3.0 storage devices, motherboards or add-in USB 3.0 cards, to verify this latent feature.
Off-topic, but an article request with similar technical analysis requirements:
It would be great if you could do a similar analysis for lossless audio streaming over HDMI - i.e. Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio - on a handful of different current-gen chipsets and GPUs, and explain why some work and others don't.
Off-topic, but an article request with similar technical analysis requirements:
It would be great if you could do a similar analysis for lossless audio streaming over HDMI - i.e. Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio - on a handful of different current-gen chipsets and GPUs, and explain why some work and others don't.
Score
2
jn77
June 20, 2012 5:20:45 PM
I think the joke comes in here where the USB Fanboys that hate Firewire need to re-think what they were talking about with USB2.0.
While by spec, Firewire 400 or 800 was "slower" than USB 2.0, why did all my FireWire devices transfer data at speeds almost double what USB 2.0 did? Because its all jargon on paper. FireWire actually had a good protocal and in reality, transfered date faster than USB ever did. We really need FireWire 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc. USB was always a replacement for PS/2 connectors.
While by spec, Firewire 400 or 800 was "slower" than USB 2.0, why did all my FireWire devices transfer data at speeds almost double what USB 2.0 did? Because its all jargon on paper. FireWire actually had a good protocal and in reality, transfered date faster than USB ever did. We really need FireWire 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc. USB was always a replacement for PS/2 connectors.
Score
1
LukeCWM
June 20, 2012 5:35:39 PM
jn77While by spec, Firewire 400 or 800 was "slower" than USB 2.0, why did all my FireWire devices transfer data at speeds almost double what USB 2.0 did?
Somewhere at sometime, I read an article that indicated that Firewire 400 is 400 Mb/s per channel, while USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s shared for all channels. So the more devices you have plugged in, the more your bandwidth suffers. Hopefully someone more educated than I or with more time to research will clarify this.
Score
2
Bob55
June 20, 2012 5:44:51 PM
Figures that Linux has support already, most of the under-the-hood stuff is 'just there' very rapidly.
I had a Firewire to SCSI adapter, as Firewire's protocol is SCSI based. The details were what made it nearly useless, too much effort would be needed to fix the last 5% or so. I suspect a UASP to SCSI adapter would have similar problems. Too bad, I'd love to 'just plug in' old hardware to current machines.
I had a Firewire to SCSI adapter, as Firewire's protocol is SCSI based. The details were what made it nearly useless, too much effort would be needed to fix the last 5% or so. I suspect a UASP to SCSI adapter would have similar problems. Too bad, I'd love to 'just plug in' old hardware to current machines.
Score
1
A Bad Day
June 20, 2012 5:50:14 PM
jn77I think the joke comes in here where the USB Fanboys that hate Firewire need to re-think what they were talking about with USB2.0.While by spec, Firewire 400 or 800 was "slower" than USB 2.0, why did all my FireWire devices transfer data at speeds almost double what USB 2.0 did? Because its all jargon on paper. FireWire actually had a good protocal and in reality, transfered date faster than USB ever did. We really need FireWire 3200, 6400, 12,800, etc. USB was always a replacement for PS/2 connectors.
USB was originally designed as a simplistic low-cost system. Keyboards, mouses, printers, other low-bandwidth devices.
Firewire was designed for video and audio transmission, which eat up large amount of bandwidth.
It was expected of USB to catch up to Firewire, especially since they have a much larger marketshare than Firewire.
In the electronic markets, hardware/software quality of a product makes some difference. But they're useless if barely anyone are using such product.
Score
3
LukeCWM said:
Somewhere at sometime, I read an article that indicated that Firewire 400 is 400 Mb/s per channel, while USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s shared for all channels. So the more devices you have plugged in, the more your bandwidth suffers. Hopefully someone more educated than I or with more time to research will clarify this.FW used a protocol very similar to SCSI and devices were daisy chained. Bandwidth per channel was shared across the entire chain yet rarely did you have more then one device plugged in per channel. USB's bandwidth is shared per controller, most controllers had an internal wired hub that branched into two to four ports on the motherboard. Later controllers actually had full dedicated bandwidth per channel and abstracted to the OS multiple controllers.
Ultimately the primary difference between USB and FW (or eSATA) is DMA mode support. USB does not support DMA transfers, thus the CPU has to fork life the data from the USB controllers I/O buffer into main memory and back again. FW / eSATA both support DMA and can transfer it from the controllers I/O buffer into main memory without assistance from the CPU. This has a significant impact on random access times and transfers along with how much load the CPU is placed under. This is why I'd never support a permanent storage solution on USB, it's good for hot-swapping devices for sneaker-netting data or data-on-the-go but is horrible for any sort of storage expansion. UAS seems to be an attempt to introduce the SCSI like features of SATA / FW to the USB protocol which should help, though without DMA support on the host controller it's always going to have issues.
Score
2
Nspace
June 21, 2012 5:33:35 AM
"ASMedia's hardware does offer UAS support, while Renesas' doesn't"
A few months ago Renesas launched controllers: μPD720201 and μPD720202
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2032896/renesa...
While the older Renesas USB 3.0 controller is μPD720200.
May you confirm whether you tested the newest Renesas controller?
A few months ago Renesas launched controllers: μPD720201 and μPD720202
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2032896/renesa...
While the older Renesas USB 3.0 controller is μPD720200.
May you confirm whether you tested the newest Renesas controller?
Score
0
Crashman
June 21, 2012 9:58:01 AM
A Bad DayMy main problem with my NEC USB 3.0 (first generation i7 laptop)?It won't accept USB 2.0 flash drives, and I only have USB 2.0 flash drives.Derp.
Easy answer: Fix your broken laptop. Option 2: Send it in for repair. Option 3: Throw it away. Really, there's something broken.Look at it this way: USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 use separate PINS. They're separate signals. You can run a single port with BOTH Intel's USB 2.0 controller and the NEC/Renesas USB 3.0 controller connected to those different pin sets. So there's no excuse for your problem, and it can't be blamed on NEC.
Maybe you need to enable USB storage in BIOS or something. Or maybe the people who engineered your laptop had a brain fart. Either way, it's a broken laptop not a controller issue.
Score
1
LordConrad
June 21, 2012 2:09:22 PM
aries1470
June 21, 2012 3:22:52 PM
Can you please correct your comment:
"With a maximum throughput of 1.5 MB/s, file transfers over USB 1.1 were frustratingly slow,"
That comment is incorrect. The "Low Speed" was 1.5 MB/s, but the full speed of USB 1.1 was 12 MB/s. USB 2.0 introduced the 480 MB/s.
Please correct it, as it gives the wrong image. Also, the 1.5 MB/s was associated with 1 token of power, that equaled 100 mA, while the 12 MB/s devices could ask for the full 5 of which is 500 mA. Also, there lies the other obstacle of low power devices being limited to 3mtr cables compared to 5mtr unpowered cables for the 500 mA.
Quote:
"With a maximum throughput of 1.5 MB/s, file transfers over USB 1.1 were frustratingly slow,"
That comment is incorrect. The "Low Speed" was 1.5 MB/s, but the full speed of USB 1.1 was 12 MB/s. USB 2.0 introduced the 480 MB/s.
Please correct it, as it gives the wrong image. Also, the 1.5 MB/s was associated with 1 token of power, that equaled 100 mA, while the 12 MB/s devices could ask for the full 5 of which is 500 mA. Also, there lies the other obstacle of low power devices being limited to 3mtr cables compared to 5mtr unpowered cables for the 500 mA.
Score
-2
Crashman
June 21, 2012 3:48:58 PM
aries1470Can you please correct your comment:That comment is incorrect. The "Low Speed" was 1.5 MB/s, but the full speed of USB 1.1 was 12 MB/s. USB 2.0 introduced the 480 MB/s.Please correct it, as it gives the wrong image. Also, the 1.5 MB/s was associated with 1 token of power, that equaled 100 mA, while the 12 MB/s devices could ask for the full 5 of which is 500 mA. Also, there lies the other obstacle of low power devices being limited to 3mtr cables compared to 5mtr unpowered cables for the 500 mA.
You're confusing bits and Bytes. 12 Mb/s ***IS*** 1.5 MB/s Score
1
aries1470
June 21, 2012 4:03:25 PM
edlivian
June 21, 2012 5:16:51 PM
andrewdarnell
June 21, 2012 5:24:18 PM
tombew
June 21, 2012 8:49:36 PM
merikafyeah said:
BTW, very interesting article. USB is well underway to being one of two "be-all-end-all" connectors for consumer tech of the future. The second of course, being HDBaseT. USB is so ubiquitous that it can't be overtaken. However, the same cannot be said for FireWire/eSATA/Thunderbolt/HDMI/DVI etc, which have all been made obsolete by the existence of HDBaseT. Once HDBT penetrates the market, only USB will stand a chance at remaining relevant.
I am under the impression that the cost of HDBaseT was proving to be a real problem except for mult-hundred-$$$$/node high end AV applications. HDBaseT-Lite does not seem to have any traction either.
Am I missing something? Do the HDBaseT Members have actual consumer devices with HDBaseT baked in?
What am I missing?
Score
1
Crashman
June 21, 2012 10:17:45 PM
edlivian said:
Ok, so all I have to do is buy a syba SD-PEX20112, and the ASUS ASM1042 driver and I am golden?Or do I also need to have the card on an asus board/change bios string to match asus?
Score
0
razor512
June 22, 2012 9:01:19 AM
I bought one of these esata adapters a while back
![]()
but instead of the standard connections, it simply has one end as esata and the other end the normal sata used for internal drives. and it uses a normal sata power cable so you can take a regular hard drive without an enclosure and just connect it to the PC.
I have it installed on my work system and at home, so I can take video footage, then put it on my 90GB SSD and edit directly on the drive and get the full sata 6gbit speeds with sequential reads of nearly 500MB/s
For other devices that I have tried that actually use USB 3, (a few new DSLR's and external drives) the speed never comes close to even 200MB/s so a faster controller wont really help much with those devices)
I feel that esata has some serious potential if they could improve the connector or at least use the same design as USB but change the shape of the plastic thing in the connector to keep actual USB devices from connecting to it.

but instead of the standard connections, it simply has one end as esata and the other end the normal sata used for internal drives. and it uses a normal sata power cable so you can take a regular hard drive without an enclosure and just connect it to the PC.
I have it installed on my work system and at home, so I can take video footage, then put it on my 90GB SSD and edit directly on the drive and get the full sata 6gbit speeds with sequential reads of nearly 500MB/s
For other devices that I have tried that actually use USB 3, (a few new DSLR's and external drives) the speed never comes close to even 200MB/s so a faster controller wont really help much with those devices)
I feel that esata has some serious potential if they could improve the connector or at least use the same design as USB but change the shape of the plastic thing in the connector to keep actual USB devices from connecting to it.
Score
1
Zingam_Duo
June 22, 2012 12:10:14 PM
itarticle
June 25, 2012 6:10:08 AM
thanks for the post. Is have any price changes?
by:- http://www.itarticle.net
by:- http://www.itarticle.net
Score
-1
voyager1
June 25, 2012 4:56:00 PM
I added a NEC/Renasas PCI USB3 card to allow me to use a Thermaltake BlacX5G to make large 100GB+ transfers from my internal SATA HDDs to external SATA HDDs for archival storage.
The transfers take place in the 75 to 90MB/s range. Almost exactly the same rate I get between my internal SATA HDDs.
A huge improvement over eSATA where I would get corruption during the large GB transfers and slow USB2 performance.
My assumption is that the holdup is due to the performance limitations of the disk drives.
Until something better comes along I'm happy.
The transfers take place in the 75 to 90MB/s range. Almost exactly the same rate I get between my internal SATA HDDs.
A huge improvement over eSATA where I would get corruption during the large GB transfers and slow USB2 performance.
My assumption is that the holdup is due to the performance limitations of the disk drives.
Until something better comes along I'm happy.
Score
-1
weegidy
June 25, 2012 7:39:28 PM
forestie
But USB 3.0 IS designed for peripherals such as large HDD. For example, I have a 3tb USB Raid 0 box I setup, and it has USB 3.0, as well as eSATA. But I get better transfer rates from the USB3.0.
USB 3.0 was designed with multiple upload and download connections in mind,
jimmysmittyOne thing with USB is that it was never designed for massive large data thoroghputs like eHDDs and larger flash drives.
But USB 3.0 IS designed for peripherals such as large HDD. For example, I have a 3tb USB Raid 0 box I setup, and it has USB 3.0, as well as eSATA. But I get better transfer rates from the USB3.0.
USB 3.0 was designed with multiple upload and download connections in mind,
Score
-2
razor512 said:
I bought one of these esata adapters a while back http://i.imgur.com/RN3nu.jpg
but instead of the standard connections, it simply has one end as esata and the other end the normal sata used for internal drives. and it uses a normal sata power cable so you can take a regular hard drive without an enclosure and just connect it to the PC.
I have it installed on my work system and at home, so I can take video footage, then put it on my 90GB SSD and edit directly on the drive and get the full sata 6gbit speeds with sequential reads of nearly 500MB/s
For other devices that I have tried that actually use USB 3, (a few new DSLR's and external drives) the speed never comes close to even 200MB/s so a faster controller wont really help much with those devices)
I feel that esata has some serious potential if they could improve the connector or at least use the same design as USB but change the shape of the plastic thing in the connector to keep actual USB devices from connecting to it.
SATA and eSATA and the same protocol, from the computer's point of view there is nothing difference between them. The only real difference is that eSATA is speced to require shielding, supports higher voltage and longer cables. That's why the cable was different, it has space and connections for shielding.
Score
1
Anonymous
June 26, 2012 3:34:05 AM
Cyberat_88
June 30, 2012 12:14:40 AM
USB never performed for HDDs from get go and all performance claims by vendors were gimmicks. To Joyfully add more to the failure of USB3 and the cheating business hype of performance speed, Benchmarked by HD Tune on my Acer Laptop directly plugged in to the port:
1) SeaGate FA GoFlex Desk 2TB - Average Transfer rate 43.5 MB/sec., Burst rate 26.4 MB/sec.. (eSATA native docked to a powered USB3 converter by SeaGate).
Advertised Speed - 625 MB/sec.. - This is where the huge gap and big scam exists.
2) Hitachi HDP725050GLA360 500MB - Average Transfer rate 25.7 MB/sec., Burst rate 18.9 MB/sec.. (IDE drive in a USB2.0/eSata enclosure connected via USB 2)
Advertised Speed - 60 MB/sec..
3) SeaGate ST3400633A 400GB - Average Transfer rate 25.8 MB/sec., Burst rate 19.1 MB/sec.. (IDE drive in USB2.0 enclosure).
Advertised Speed - 60 MB/sec..
When all is said and done, reasons for lower speed are but EXCUSES, we need to stop buying USB products until the business comes clean.
1) SeaGate FA GoFlex Desk 2TB - Average Transfer rate 43.5 MB/sec., Burst rate 26.4 MB/sec.. (eSATA native docked to a powered USB3 converter by SeaGate).
Advertised Speed - 625 MB/sec.. - This is where the huge gap and big scam exists.
2) Hitachi HDP725050GLA360 500MB - Average Transfer rate 25.7 MB/sec., Burst rate 18.9 MB/sec.. (IDE drive in a USB2.0/eSata enclosure connected via USB 2)
Advertised Speed - 60 MB/sec..
3) SeaGate ST3400633A 400GB - Average Transfer rate 25.8 MB/sec., Burst rate 19.1 MB/sec.. (IDE drive in USB2.0 enclosure).
Advertised Speed - 60 MB/sec..
When all is said and done, reasons for lower speed are but EXCUSES, we need to stop buying USB products until the business comes clean.
Score
0
Cyberat_88
June 30, 2012 12:22:20 AM
IDE drives installed in a P4 desktop were performing at an average of 42 MB/sec., surely you're not blind to the lack of speed of new HDD technology and the numbers written on a box no longer have a meaning. HDDs are the MAIN bottleneck of today's computers and it's wall to wall corporate ripoff for the nerd wannabe geek and the pseudo scientist not bothered with facts or actual performance tests. SELL OUTS !
Score
-2
Crashman
June 30, 2012 2:34:57 AM
Cyberat_88
June 30, 2012 7:04:15 PM
@Cyber ...
Really don't get what your trying to say there. Those numbers are just max bandwidth per channel not your actual transfer speed. You have encoding to worry about, then latency, then protocol overhead, then finally system I/O overhead, all conspiring to lower your transfer speeds. USB protocol was never designed for bulk transfers, down the years they've created a few enhanced transfer modes, and that's helped somewhat, but ultimately the protocol as envisioned was designed for hot-plunging peripherals. It acts as a all-in-one connector / protocol / stack for Keyboards / Mice / Printers / Fax machines / scanners / camera's and other generic peripherals, to achieve that ubiquity meant they couldn't specialize in fast efficient bulk data transfers. No false advertising there, it does exactly what it supposed to.
Really don't get what your trying to say there. Those numbers are just max bandwidth per channel not your actual transfer speed. You have encoding to worry about, then latency, then protocol overhead, then finally system I/O overhead, all conspiring to lower your transfer speeds. USB protocol was never designed for bulk transfers, down the years they've created a few enhanced transfer modes, and that's helped somewhat, but ultimately the protocol as envisioned was designed for hot-plunging peripherals. It acts as a all-in-one connector / protocol / stack for Keyboards / Mice / Printers / Fax machines / scanners / camera's and other generic peripherals, to achieve that ubiquity meant they couldn't specialize in fast efficient bulk data transfers. No false advertising there, it does exactly what it supposed to.
Score
1
Cyberat_88
July 3, 2012 5:41:35 PM
I am aware of the procedure the data goes through and it makes no difference to me as an IT professional, I couldn't care less why. The main subject I am trying to convey is that those averages ARE the ACTUAL transfer speeds, files do not move any faster, I've had movies transferred and large numbers of small files. There IS false advertising, it's called 5 megabits per second or 625 megabytes per second, THAT is your FALSE advertising, why are you trying to cover that up and protect bad business practices. I've never denied the use for the all-in-one connector, just the claim to great speeds. I do not want to see a more direct and fast external connection such as eSATA dumped by unscrupulous businessmen, pseudo-geeks and other people with interests vested in failed devices. USB3 is useless, you do not need more speed for kb/mouse/printer/scanner than already exists in USB2. The proof is in the numbers, not excuses or beliefs. Deliver the 625MB/sec. ACTUAL speed or go back to the drawing board.
Score
0
Cyberat_88
July 3, 2012 5:46:24 PM
Anonymous
July 22, 2012 1:12:22 PM
I just found this article so sorry for the late comment.
I wold like to remind everyone about something really great and request that it be added to this review in an update.
http://www.delock.de/produkte/G_61862/merkmale.html?set...
This is a front panel or bracket connector that allows you to use not only USB 2.0 and eSATAp but also USB 3.0. (they also offer the receptacle itself for soldering to motherboards.
I have a strong opinion that for consumer non-video, non-network, non-audio connectivity this is the ideal host port.
Unfortunately manufacturers don't seem to care.
Also I request you test this
http://www.vantecusa.com/gl/product/view_detail/471
It is the only true SATA 3.0 6Gbps to USB 3.0 adapter I know of and it would be interesting to see if it makes any difference.
According to http://www.cnet.com.au/can-we-stop-lying-about-numbers-...
it shouldn't.
I wold like to remind everyone about something really great and request that it be added to this review in an update.
http://www.delock.de/produkte/G_61862/merkmale.html?set...
This is a front panel or bracket connector that allows you to use not only USB 2.0 and eSATAp but also USB 3.0. (they also offer the receptacle itself for soldering to motherboards.
I have a strong opinion that for consumer non-video, non-network, non-audio connectivity this is the ideal host port.
Unfortunately manufacturers don't seem to care.
Also I request you test this
http://www.vantecusa.com/gl/product/view_detail/471
It is the only true SATA 3.0 6Gbps to USB 3.0 adapter I know of and it would be interesting to see if it makes any difference.
According to http://www.cnet.com.au/can-we-stop-lying-about-numbers-...
it shouldn't.
Score
0
Cyberat_88
July 22, 2012 11:31:44 PM
Kyle Sebion
November 29, 2012 5:48:58 PM
The ASM1051 controller does not have UAS support. The ASM1051E, on the Thermaltake Blacx 5G, and ASM1051U do. I have a device that uses the ASM1051 controller and have experienced the BOT bottleneck.
ASM1051: http://www.asmedia.com.tw/eng/e_show_products.php?cate_index=97&item=90
ASM1051: http://www.asmedia.com.tw/eng/e_show_products.php?cate_index=97&item=90
Score
0
PTNLemay
October 11, 2013 3:38:02 PM
Diceman2037
October 28, 2013 9:39:37 PM
Article is WRONG
054C00C1 is a pre-existing reg key that is predefined to work around issues in a particular usb storage device
For this change to function, you must CREATE a subkey for the device you intend it to be used with by converting the VIDPID (in VVVVPPPP) of the device into hex (and adding 0's to the front to make the key 8 characters)
for example, for my kingston DT R500, the keypath would be
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\usbstor\009122e6
you would then enter the MaximumTransferLength dword under this key.
054C00C1 is a pre-existing reg key that is predefined to work around issues in a particular usb storage device
For this change to function, you must CREATE a subkey for the device you intend it to be used with by converting the VIDPID (in VVVVPPPP) of the device into hex (and adding 0's to the front to make the key 8 characters)
for example, for my kingston DT R500, the keypath would be
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\usbstor\009122e6
you would then enter the MaximumTransferLength dword under this key.
Score
0
Diceman2037
October 28, 2013 9:51:26 PM
Diceman2037
October 28, 2013 10:21:20 PM
actually according to
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/180768-boost-windows-7-...
you just combine the VID and PID obtained from the device manager (or tool like usbdeview) as it is already in hex. and use this as the usbstor subkey.
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/180768-boost-windows-7-...
you just combine the VID and PID obtained from the device manager (or tool like usbdeview) as it is already in hex. and use this as the usbstor subkey.
Score
0
nononono4t67
January 12, 2014 1:47:17 PM
jmichae3
May 10, 2014 5:06:24 AM
according to http://www.asmedia.com.tw/eng/e_show_products.php?cate_... only the ASM1042A controller chip (not the one without A, and thus not the syba controllers) support UAS. note the lack of UAS on this ASM1042 chip:
in my ASUS p9x79 deluxe 1.0 mobo, it lists an ASMedia xCHI USB controller. but this could be either one, and I am suspecting because mine is an older version, that it's not the A chip. USB 3.0 Boost caused flakiness, and the USB firmware update tool broke my USB firmware apparently or it's just buggy, nothing fixed yet. apparently the firmware for the controller on my mobo has been bricked, because support says I need to have my motherboard replaced. I hope a BIOS update fixes this, it could. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2351620
hard drives appear and disappear with the Boost driver I am using in win7. so I uninstalled it or just turned boost off and things became more stable I think.
newegg.com has this 4-port HighPoint ASM1042A usb 3.0+UASP controller card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
latter is for the mac.
in my ASUS p9x79 deluxe 1.0 mobo, it lists an ASMedia xCHI USB controller. but this could be either one, and I am suspecting because mine is an older version, that it's not the A chip. USB 3.0 Boost caused flakiness, and the USB firmware update tool broke my USB firmware apparently or it's just buggy, nothing fixed yet. apparently the firmware for the controller on my mobo has been bricked, because support says I need to have my motherboard replaced. I hope a BIOS update fixes this, it could. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2351620
hard drives appear and disappear with the Boost driver I am using in win7. so I uninstalled it or just turned boost off and things became more stable I think.
newegg.com has this 4-port HighPoint ASM1042A usb 3.0+UASP controller card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
latter is for the mac.
Score
0
Related resources
!