From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} USB 3.0 hard drive speed test
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:20:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEH5T2MSgaf2P3A3f6bAtVpE7ONp_HcvrPugCdB7C0HUkTo-UQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN0CFw26svtoPCfDfj_QueSp4qva8txvCzsnwveMyPNhOQSw2g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I'm testing this USB 3.0 bus-powered hard drive:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0041OSQ9S
>>> >
>>> > and I get:
>>> >
>>> > # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>>> > /dev/sdb:
>>> > Timing cached reads: 8006 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4004.33 MB/sec
>>> > Timing buffered disk reads: 252 MB in 3.01 seconds = 83.63 MB/sec
>>> >
>>> > # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>>> > /dev/sdb:
>>> > Timing cached reads: 8230 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4116.54 MB/sec
>>> > Timing buffered disk reads: 252 MB in 3.02 seconds = 83.55 MB/sec
>>> >
>>> > # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>>> > /dev/sdb:
>>> > Timing cached reads: 8446 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4224.36 MB/sec
>>> > Timing buffered disk reads: 230 MB in 3.02 seconds = 76.28 MB/sec
>>> >
>>> > Wikipedia says USB 3.0 has transmission speeds of up to 5 Gbit/s.
>>> > Doesn't MB/sec denote mega*bytes* per second?
Those speeds seem good and normal to me, much faster than USB 2.0
would have provided. And really good for a low-power drive. Faster
than my USB 3.0 32GB flash drive. :)
Here's a benchmark of 2.5" USB 3.0 external drives, in fact yours is
one of the tested disks. Your speeds above are actually faster than
the benchmarked speeds:
http://www.everythingusb.com/images/list/portable-drive-large-file-copy-benchmark.png
> Here's what I get from the same hard drive plugged into a USB 2.0 port:
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sdb
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 102 MB in 3.01 seconds = 33.90 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sdb
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 92 MB in 3.00 seconds = 30.66 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sdb
> /dev/sdb:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 102 MB in 3.03 seconds = 33.63 MB/sec
>
> So USB 2.0 throughput is obviously creating a bottleneck. USB 2.0
> throughput is said to be 60 MB/s so I'm surprised I'm not doing much
> better than 30 MB/s there.
USB 2.0 theoretical max is 480Mbps but realistically it is more like
320Mbps, which means your speeds above are just about as fast as
anyone is ever going to get on USB 2.0, and they are in line with the
fastest speeds I've ever gotten personally on USB 2.0. Roughly about
32 MB/sec is "maximum speed" on USB 2.0 in my experience.
> USB 3.0 throughput is said to be 625 MB/s so I must be running up
> against the speed of the disk itself in USB 3.0 mode, correct?
Processing power of the external USB<->SATA controller chip could also
come into play. But in your case I think you're getting the maximum
speed possible from the drive. Be happy. :)
>Here's
> what I get from my internal SATA hard drive, but it is surely a much
> faster disk:
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sda
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 412 MB in 3.01 seconds = 136.99 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sda
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 412 MB in 3.01 seconds = 136.75 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -t /dev/sda
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 414 MB in 3.01 seconds = 137.55 MB/sec
Surely a faster/higher-powered disk and I would guess that USB 3 maybe
has higher latency than the SATA controller on your laptop's
motherboard. I know USB 2.0 has latency problems (and why the audio
nerds* prefer firewire equipment).
* used as a term of endearment :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-11 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-11 17:12 [gentoo-user] {OT} USB 3.0 hard drive speed test Grant
2011-08-11 17:27 ` covici
2011-08-11 17:30 ` Mark Knecht
2011-08-11 18:25 ` Grant
2011-08-18 19:46 ` Grant
2011-08-18 22:46 ` Paul Hartman
2011-08-18 23:32 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-08-20 4:48 ` Paul Hartman
2011-08-12 14:58 ` Michael Mol
2011-08-12 22:03 ` covici
2011-08-11 17:30 ` Mark Knecht
2011-08-11 17:49 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2011-08-11 17:57 ` Simon
2011-08-11 18:50 ` Grant
2011-08-11 18:59 ` Alan McKinnon
2011-08-11 20:20 ` Paul Hartman [this message]
2011-08-12 2:04 ` Grant
2011-08-12 8:54 ` Peter Humphrey
2011-08-11 18:27 ` Grant
2011-08-11 18:34 ` Mark Knecht
2011-08-11 18:52 ` Grant
2011-08-11 19:04 ` Alan McKinnon
2011-08-11 17:46 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAEH5T2MSgaf2P3A3f6bAtVpE7ONp_HcvrPugCdB7C0HUkTo-UQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox