From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-130252-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RIOLi-0002By-Rp
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:30:11 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBB5221C09B;
Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:29:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED4CE00D3
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B323D1B400E
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:29:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -3.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.637 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-1.9,
DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id XEbprfSocPTj for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>;
Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:28:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B1B1B4009
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:28:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-user@m.gmane.org>)
id 1RIOKQ-0005st-6O
for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:28:50 +0200
Received: from adsl-69-234-195-211.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([69.234.195.211])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:28:50 +0200
Received: from w41ter by adsl-69-234-195-211.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:28:50 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
From: walt <w41ter@gmail.com>
Subject: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disappointing USB3 performance
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:28:25 -0700
Message-ID: <j8477v$etg$1@dough.gmane.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-69-234-195-211.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111004 Thunderbird/7.0.1
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 0ddfacd17c4f1a0e86e345585274ee5a
I just bought an add-on USB3 adapter and outboard USB3/sata docking
station, and I've been comparing the performance with my old e-sata
outboard docking station. Not so good :(
After getting some unreliable results with hdparm, I settled on
copying one 3GB file from one partition of the outboard drive to
another partition of the same drive. These results are highly
reproducible, and favor e-sata over USB3 by a large margin.
Over at least six trials on each docking station I consistently
get 105 seconds for USB and 84 seconds for e-sata, a 5:4 ratio
in favor of e-sata.
I used the same hard disk and the same pci-e slot in the same
minimally-loaded machine for all the runs, and got very consistent
results every time.
Basically, the USB3/sata docking station gets the same throughput as
the older sata 1 drives connected to the onboard pci sata controller,
which is still pretty respectable for an outboard drive, I think.
So, has anyone out there done similar tests on USB3 drives yet?