Speed of an IDE drive in a USB enclosure ?

Arno Wagner wrote:
Previously Ed Light wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

Show some manners. You have your own filter.
You are asking somebody that has to post under ever new (and
badly obscured) identities because nobody listens anymore, to
show manners? Sounds futile to me.

Arno, OK. I'm ready with more filters.

I know it is impolite, but it seems sometimes nothing else helps...
Being polite does not mean to tolerate every kind of behaviour,
so don't feel too bad about it.

Oh, don't worry. Filters make happiness.


--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed 'no bright' Light wrote in
Arno Wagner wrote:
Previously Ed Light wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

Show some manners. You have your own filter.
You are asking somebody that has to post under ever new

(and badly obscured)

Oh really? You must be quite dense then that you still respond to
them when you apply killfilters just to protect you from doing so.

identities because nobody listens anymore, to show manners?
Sounds futile to me.

Arno, OK. I'm ready with more filters.

I know it is impolite,

Says the king of killfilters.

but it seems sometimes nothing else helps...
Being polite does not mean to tolerate every kind of behaviour,
so don't feel too bad about it.

Oh, don't worry. Filters make happiness.

Yup, they certainly keep you ignorant and as we all know ignorance is bliss.
And with babblebot by far having the biggest killfile he is the ignorance King.

Btw, who needs filters when your peons like Ed 'no bright' Light and Mikey R. carefully filter his booboos from their response so
their
God Wagner doesn't need to see it when he responds through them.

On or about Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:00:53 -0800 did "Eric Gisin"
dribble thusly:

"Ed Light" wrote in message
.. .
Floyd63 wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote in

150mb = 18.75MB is relativelly nrmal for "slow" high=speed USB
devices.

No, it's not, babblebot.

With fast ones you can get something like up to 30MB/s,

Wrong. But you are improving on your 25MB/s earlier and 10-20MB/s before that, babblebot.
Maybe -in a few years time- you will get it right, some day.

Show some manners. You have your own filter.

Take your advice form Arnie the ****ed up Troll, then.
19MB/s is well below any USB host controller.

Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

But don't let facts get in the way of insulting someone.

Mike Ruskai wrote:

Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

Yes! My usb hd enclosure shows 17MB/sec in HD tach over most of the 7200
rpm disk in it.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Previously Mike Ruskai wrote:
On or about Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:00:53 -0800 did "Eric Gisin"
dribble thusly:

"Ed Light" wrote in message
. ..
Floyd63 wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote in

150mb = 18.75MB is relativelly nrmal for "slow" high=speed USB
devices.

No, it's not, babblebot.

With fast ones you can get something like up to 30MB/s,

Wrong. But you are improving on your 25MB/s earlier and 10-20MB/s before that, babblebot.
Maybe -in a few years time- you will get it right, some day.

Show some manners. You have your own filter.

Take your advice form Arnie the ****ed up Troll, then.
19MB/s is well below any USB host controller.

Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

But don't let facts get in the way of insulting someone.

That seems to be the only entertainment he is getting...

I think with this level of demonstrated incompetence and
arrogance, I do not even need to defend myself against
the constant insults and slander. It is very, very obvious
what is going on.

Arno

Ed Light wrote in
Mike Ruskai wrote:

Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

Yes! My usb hd enclosure shows 17MB/sec in HD tach over most of the 7200
rpm disk in it.

Right, so "all you can expect" is sub-par performance.

So, on how many USB controllers (host adapters) did you test this to confirm
it's not your enclosure that is the problem, or your driver, or HD Tach?

Arno Wagner wrote in
Previously Mike Ruskai wrote:
On or about Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:00:53 -0800 did "Eric Gisin" dribble thusly:
"Ed Light" wrote in message ...
Floyd63 wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote in

150mb = 18.75MB is relativelly nrmal for "slow" high=speed USB devices.

No, it's not, babblebot.

With fast ones you can get something like up to 30MB/s,

Wrong. But you are improving on your 25MB/s earlier and 10-20MB/s before that, babblebot.
Maybe -in a few years time- you will get it right, some day.

Show some manners. You have your own filter.

Take your advice form Arnie the ****ed up Troll, then.
19MB/s is well below any USB host controller.

Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

Right, so obviously all that you can "expect" is sub-par performance.


But don't let facts get in the way of insulting someone.

Right, obviously sub-par devices, interfaces and drivers dictate what USB2.0 can do.


That seems to be the only entertainment he is getting...

I think with this level of demonstrated incompetence and arrogance,

And what level of incompetence was that then, babblebot?
Easy to say, nothing to substantiate.

I do not even need to defend myself against the constant insults and slander.

Now isn't that very convenient when obviously there isn't anything to your
defense. You could of course blame it on your killfile, keeping you clueless.
Or your peons that snip your booboos from the messages so you don't need
to see them when you respond through them.

It is very, very obvious what is going on.

Yes babblebot, it's all a huge conspiracy.
Even your fav mag c't is conspiring against you.


Arno

Arno Wagner wrote in
Previously wrote:
Hi,

I used an old 40Gb IDE laptop drive in a USB enclosure to store Ghost
images. When I'm restoring an image with this drive connected to a
USB 2.0 port, I'm only getting 150Mb /s transfer rate. Is this the
normal speed for such a setup ? It seems rather slow to me.


150mb = 18.75MB is relativelly nrmal for "slow" high=speed USB
devices.

No, it's not, babblebot.

With fast ones you can get something like up to 30MB/s,

Wrong. But you are improving on your 25MB/s earlier and 10-20MB/s
before that, babblebot.
Maybe -in a few years time- you will get it right, some day.

but that is it.

Typical then that your favourite mag c't measured rates up to 34MB/s,
6 years back already (c't 15, 2002). They must have been so very wrong.

The rest is rest is lost to overhead.

Arno

On or about Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:19:10 +0100 did "Nermal"
dribble thusly:

Previously Mike Ruskai wrote:
Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec.

Right, so obviously all that you can "expect" is sub-par performance.

Since you seem to have trouble remembering, I'll remind you that this thread
is about a single actual real-world example of someone using a USB 2.0
enclosure with a mobile hard drive. It is not about USB 2.0 in general.

And because it's apparent you need help with reasoning, I'll point out that
the reasons for his lackluster performance stats (15Mbps) have been addressed
by the various responders as possibly from a mediocre USB 2.0 host controller,
or possibly from the drive itself (if it's an old 4200RPM 40GB drive, it will
not be fast). None of the responders suggested, explicitly or implicitly,
that USB 2.0 is incapable of faster speeds in general.

But don't let facts get in the way of insulting someone.

Right, obviously sub-par devices, interfaces and drivers dictate what USB2.0 can do.

Only in the chaotic firing of neurons that you call thought. No one else has
suggested anything of the sort.

Well, many thanks to the responders who tried to help with sensible
answers.

As for the rest of you, bitching and sniping at each other.... life
is too short people... time to put down the poison pen, join hands and
sing together.... "All we need is love, da da da da da, all we need is
love, da da da da da, all we need is love, love - love is all we
need" :-)



On 20 Nov, 18:31, Mike Ruskai
wrote:
On or about Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:19:10 +0100 did "Nermal"
dribble thusly:

Previously Mike Ruskai wrote:
Spoken (well, written) like someone with no real-world experience. *Plenty of
low-end USB 2.0 controllers have sub-par performance, below 20MB/sec..

Right, so obviously all that you can "expect" is sub-par performance.

Since you seem to have trouble remembering, I'll remind you that this thread
is about a single actual real-world example of someone using a USB 2.0
enclosure with a mobile hard drive. *It is not about USB 2.0 in general..

And because it's apparent you need help with reasoning, I'll point out that
the reasons for his lackluster performance stats (15Mbps) have been addressed
by the various responders as possibly from a mediocre USB 2.0 host controller,
or possibly from the drive itself (if it's an old 4200RPM 40GB drive, it will
not be fast). *None of the responders suggested, explicitly or implicitly,
that USB 2.0 is incapable of faster speeds in general.

But don't let facts get in the way of insulting someone.

Right, obviously sub-par devices, interfaces and drivers dictate what USB2.0 can do.

Only in the chaotic firing of neurons that you call thought. *No one else has
suggested anything of the sort.