Waaay OT! Question

Why is it when I transfer large files to a USB flash drive is it way
faster than transfer to SD card in a card reader,camera or GPS? Is
there a faster way to transfer to SD card?
Tnx,
bob

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...
Why is it when I transfer large files to a USB flash drive is it way
faster than transfer to SD card in a card reader,camera or GPS? Is
there a faster way to transfer to SD card?
Tnx,
bob

What's you definition of large? What's your definition of way faster?

I don't mean to sound glib, but I've seen people complain when their PDFs
are too large and they're only about 150 k.

Bob

On Apr 11, 8:33*am, "Bob Levine" wrote:
"Bob Villa" wrote in message

...

Why is it when I transfer large files to a USB flash drive is it way
faster than transfer to SD card in a card reader,camera or GPS? Is
there a faster way to transfer to SD card?
Tnx,
bob

What's you definition of large? What's your definition of way faster?

I don't mean to sound glib, but I've seen people complain when their PDFs
are too large and they're only about 150 k.

Bob

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.

Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?

Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?

Bob

On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:
"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.

Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?

Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?

Bob

Could there be driver issues involved? I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). It
was painfully slow. I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

On Apr 11, 3:47*pm, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
....

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.

Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?

Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?

Bob

Could there be driver issues involved? *I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). *It
was painfully slow. *I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. *The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. *I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

Maybe I will have to get a cheapie card reader! I used to deal with
transfer in real-time with digital palmcorder and figured when you use
an SD it would simply be a file transfer. I have never found it to be
so.

bob

Bob Villa wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...
Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.
Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?
Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?
Bob
Could there be driver issues involved? I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). It
was painfully slow. I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

Maybe I will have to get a cheapie card reader! I used to deal with
transfer in real-time with digital palmcorder and figured when you use
an SD it would simply be a file transfer. I have never found it to be
so.

bob

Are those memory cards optimized for that kind of file transfer? I
somehow doubt it. However, I think it's only a matter of time before
they are. I mean, why carry around a stack of CDs when you can pack so
much more data into a tiny SD card?

Daddy

On 4/11/2010 11:47 PM, Daddy wrote:
Bob Villa wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.
Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?
Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?
Bob
Could there be driver issues involved? I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). It
was painfully slow. I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

Maybe I will have to get a cheapie card reader! I used to deal with
transfer in real-time with digital palmcorder and figured when you use
an SD it would simply be a file transfer. I have never found it to be
so.

bob

Are those memory cards optimized for that kind of file transfer? I
somehow doubt it. However, I think it's only a matter of time before
they are. I mean, why carry around a stack of CDs when you can pack so
much more data into a tiny SD card?

Daddy

OK, as a test I just copied all the picture files from one of my (1 GB)
SD cards to the hard drive. There were 335 files in two folders, 898 MB
(where 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes). It took just over 59 seconds for the
transfer.

I also copied a single 974 MB file from the hard drive to an SD card and
copied the same file back to the hard drive. Writing to the SD card
took 67 seconds. Reading took 56 seconds.

These file transfers were done with Windows Explorer "drag and drop"
under Win XP SP3.

This was a Kingston elite pro 1 GB 50X SD card in a Delkin Devices eFilm
USB 2.0 SD/MMC reader.

Note that different SD cards have different rated transfer speeds. The
cards I used are rated for 7.5 MB/sec write and 8.2 MB/sec read. Oddly,
the speeds I got are double the rated speeds. I'm not sure whether
Kingston's specs are just conservative or there is some other reason for
the higher speed. The "50X" in the card designation is supposedly
comparable to the "X" speeds specified for CD ROMs. In other words,
writing to this SD card should be about the same speed as writing a CD
at a speed of "50X". Kingston lists four different speeds for this type
of SD card: 45X, 50X, 133X, and 266X. Other SD cards apparently have
transfer speeds of 2 MB/sec or better.

The main reason for storing data on CDs (or DVDs) rather than SD cards
is that the SD cards are one to two orders of magnitude more expensive.
I would think that CDs/DVDs are probably less prone to accidental
destruction of data as well. It is, however, a lot easier to fit an SD
card in a camera, and it does not require any spin-up time to access. :)

Bill Ghrist

On Apr 12, 10:35*am, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 11:47 PM, Daddy wrote:



Bob Villa wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.
Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?
Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?
Bob
Could there be driver issues involved? I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). It
was painfully slow. I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

Maybe I will have to get a cheapie card reader! I used to deal with
transfer in real-time with digital palmcorder and figured when you use
an SD it would simply be a file transfer. I have never found it to be
so.

bob

Are those memory cards optimized for that kind of file transfer? I
somehow doubt it. However, I think it's only a matter of time before
they are. I mean, why carry around a stack of CDs when you can pack so
much more data into a tiny SD card?

Daddy

OK, as a test I just copied all the picture files from one of my (1 GB)
SD cards to the hard drive. *There were 335 files in two folders, 898 MB
(where 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes). *It took just over 59 seconds for the
transfer.

I also copied a single 974 MB file from the hard drive to an SD card and
copied the same file back to the hard drive. *Writing to the SD card
took 67 seconds. *Reading took 56 seconds.

These file transfers were done with Windows Explorer "drag and drop"
under Win XP SP3.

This was a Kingston elite pro 1 GB 50X SD card in a Delkin Devices eFilm
USB 2.0 SD/MMC reader.

Note that different SD cards have different rated transfer speeds. *The
cards I used are rated for 7.5 MB/sec write and 8.2 MB/sec read. *Oddly,
the speeds I got are double the rated speeds. *I'm not sure whether
Kingston's specs are just conservative or there is some other reason for
the higher speed. *The "50X" in the card designation is supposedly
comparable to the "X" speeds specified for CD ROMs. *In other words,
writing to this SD card should be about the same speed as writing a CD
at a speed of "50X". *Kingston lists four different speeds for this type
of SD card: 45X, 50X, 133X, and 266X. *Other SD cards apparently have
transfer speeds of 2 MB/sec or better.

The main reason for storing data on CDs (or DVDs) rather than SD cards
is that the SD cards are one to two orders of magnitude more expensive.
* I would think that CDs/DVDs are probably less prone to accidental
destruction of data as well. *It is, however, a lot easier to fit an SD
card in a camera, and it does not require any spin-up time to access. :)

Bill Ghrist

I will check the card speed. What you got is what you would expect in
transferring files whether they are jpg or mov.
Thanks for the input.
bob

On Apr 12, 10:35*am, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 11:47 PM, Daddy wrote:



Bob Villa wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bill Ghrist wrote:
On 4/11/2010 1:11 PM, Bob Levine wrote:

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

Like 2Gb and 3min. vs 40min.
Wow! What kind of card reader are you using? If it's USB is it USB2?
Is the computer a mix of USB 1 and 2?
Bob
Could there be driver issues involved? I remember that once I tried to
copy pix from an SD card to my cousin's PC by plugging the card into a
card reader slot on the PC (I don't remember the brand and model). It
was painfully slow. I plugged the same SD card into my cheapie eFilm
card reader, then into a USB port on his machine, and the transfer rate
was fine. The difference between the two could well have been a 40 vs 3
ratio. I have no idea why they were so different.

Bill Ghrist

Maybe I will have to get a cheapie card reader! I used to deal with
transfer in real-time with digital palmcorder and figured when you use
an SD it would simply be a file transfer. I have never found it to be
so.

bob

Are those memory cards optimized for that kind of file transfer? I
somehow doubt it. However, I think it's only a matter of time before
they are. I mean, why carry around a stack of CDs when you can pack so
much more data into a tiny SD card?

Daddy

OK, as a test I just copied all the picture files from one of my (1 GB)
SD cards to the hard drive. *There were 335 files in two folders, 898 MB
(where 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes). *It took just over 59 seconds for the
transfer.

I also copied a single 974 MB file from the hard drive to an SD card and
copied the same file back to the hard drive. *Writing to the SD card
took 67 seconds. *Reading took 56 seconds.

These file transfers were done with Windows Explorer "drag and drop"
under Win XP SP3.

This was a Kingston elite pro 1 GB 50X SD card in a Delkin Devices eFilm
USB 2.0 SD/MMC reader.

Note that different SD cards have different rated transfer speeds. *The
cards I used are rated for 7.5 MB/sec write and 8.2 MB/sec read. *Oddly,
the speeds I got are double the rated speeds. *I'm not sure whether
Kingston's specs are just conservative or there is some other reason for
the higher speed. *The "50X" in the card designation is supposedly
comparable to the "X" speeds specified for CD ROMs. *In other words,
writing to this SD card should be about the same speed as writing a CD
at a speed of "50X". *Kingston lists four different speeds for this type
of SD card: 45X, 50X, 133X, and 266X. *Other SD cards apparently have
transfer speeds of 2 MB/sec or better.

The main reason for storing data on CDs (or DVDs) rather than SD cards
is that the SD cards are one to two orders of magnitude more expensive.
* I would think that CDs/DVDs are probably less prone to accidental
destruction of data as well. *It is, however, a lot easier to fit an SD
card in a camera, and it does not require any spin-up time to access. :)

Bill Ghrist

Here is my recent trail: computer to printer card reader, 1.2 Gb file
(Garmin .img) 18 min. New Kingston 2Gb SD (no speed rating on it)
bob