Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Is USB 3 a failure?

08 Feb 2011   #11
Maguscreed

Microsoft Community Contributor Award Recipient

Windows 7 x64
 
 

eSATA is better, but I've had mixed experience with it's reliability.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
08 Feb 2011   #12
premier69

Windows 7 RTM x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Maguscreed View Post
eSATA is better, but I've had mixed experience with it's reliability.
please explain, I am a collector and would absolutely hate to loose sveral hundreds of gigs of media stuff...

Also, how does SMART functions work with external drive? as normal?

Oh and another qustion. I have several drives and 2 of those are Seagate and Acronis disk management reports 30% SMART health status on those 2 but all others are in the green. But when testing the seagate drives using their diagnostic tools is says everything is fine... i doubt that because one of the drives seem to be having problems. Tho, my entire PC seems to suffer with I/O performance. mouse gets sluggish when transferring between drives sometimes.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #13
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Maguscreed View Post
That would be roughly a 60 megabyte/sec cap. That can't be accurate I've had sustained higher than that over 2.0.
I don't think that sounds right to me. 480megabits per second is correct...so 480,000,000 / 8 = 60,000,000 bytes per second / 1024 bytes = 58,593KB/sec. I've never seen a USB 2.0 device come close to 100% full saturation, about 70% with overhead is about as good as it will get. So, 60MB/sec x .70 = 42MB/sec is as fast as USB 2.0 is really going to go.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by premier69 View Post
i got som old 7200rpm drive in an old lacie usb2 external chassi and i get ALMOST 30mb/s.
That sounds a whole lot closer. I usually get 25-28MB/sec sustained transfer to my USB 2.0 devices.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

08 Feb 2011   #14
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

...
Quote:
so 480,000,000 / 8 = 60,000,000 bytes
That is not quite right. Although a byte has 8 data bits, there is also a 9th checkbit. Plus there is some checkdata that can be interleaved with the records. That's why I always quote a ratio 10:1 for bits:Bytes. That is not 100% right, but close enough and easy to convert.

The last image I took to a USB3 drive (5400 RPM disk), I got about 460Mb/sec write.


Attached Images
Is USB 3 a failure?-2011-02-07_1021.png 
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #15
GeneO

Windows 10 Pro. EFI boot partition, full EFI boot
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Maguscreed View Post
That would be roughly a 60 megabyte/sec cap. That can't be accurate I've had sustained higher than that over 2.0.
Yes it is accurate. It is 480 Mb/s, you must be mistaken. Because of protocol overheads the effective rate is more like 320 Mb/s, or 40 MBytes/s. I have never gotten sustained throughput of more than 35 MB/s. I doubt anybody else has either.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #16
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by whs View Post
The last image I took to a USB3 drive (5400 RPM disk), I got about 460Mb/sec write.
You got 460Mb/sec after the data was compressed and moved over to the external hard drive. Effectively, 460Mb of your system was backed up per second, but the actual throughput of the data to the device was slower. If you indeed got 460Mb/sec...you could have completed a 20GB image in just 40 seconds.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by whs View Post
...
Quote:
so 480,000,000 / 8 = 60,000,000 bytes
That is not quite right. Although a byte has 8 data bits, there is also a 9th checkbit. Plus there is some checkdata that can be interleaved with the records. That's why I always quote a ratio 10:1 for bits:Bytes. That is not 100% right, but close enough and easy to convert.
Generally speaking though, when converting data transfer rates, you use 8 bits per byte as the accepted standard. You can see this website gets the exact same results that I came up with;
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-transferrate.htm.

Either way, with 8 bits or 10x...you are roughly the same amount of data...58-62MB/sec.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #17
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

Quote:
If you indeed got 460Mb/sec...you could have completed a 20GB image in just 40 seconds.

This you have to compute for me - but real slow please.

Here is my take:

460 Mb/sec is roughly 50MB/sec
20GB is 20,000 MB
20,000 divided by 50 is 400sec equal about 7 minutes

And that's about the time it took to take that image.

Btw: compressed or not compressed has nothing to do with it if the resulting image is 20GB - the amount of data in the partition was about 40GB.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #18
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

sorry, I thought you were talking megabytes per second, but you indeed meant megabits per second. I screwed that one up. I usually try to refer to ###Mbps when I am talking megabits and ###MB/s when I mean megabytes. Totally my bad.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #19
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
sorry, I thought you were talking megabytes per second, but you indeed meant megabits per second. I screwed that one up. I usually try to refer to ###Mbps when I am talking megabits and ###MB/s when I mean megabytes. Totally my bad.
Thanks, now I got my bearings back.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Feb 2011   #20
GeneO

Windows 10 Pro. EFI boot partition, full EFI boot
 
 

There aren't that many eSATA devices around either - for as long as it has been around.
Because USB can do different kinds of devices other than SATA drives, and is backwards compatible with USB 2.0, it certainly won't be a failure, even though Intel would like it to be I think. THe fact that it can handle many different kinds of devices makes it better than eSATA for data storage.

eSATA is more suitable for system disks or SSDs where low latency is important. USB has too high a latency for these purposes.

It is just new, and slowed by Intel.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Is USB 3 a failure?




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
External Hard Drive failure. "Bad disk" after power failure
Hi Everyone, I'm hoping to get some help. I had a power outage while my WD Elements 1.5 TB Hard drive was on. I wasn't accessing it but apparently that was enough. I had a lot of important data on it but losing hope after unsuccessful attempts to use PhotoRec to get items off it. It...
Hardware & Devices
Backup Failure--Failure in creating a directory on backup storage dir.
Hi all. If it ain't one thing, it's another. I do a "create system image" on my three Windows 7 computers each Sunday. Ususally there are no problems but today I get the attached message on one computer. I saw a suggestion to disable my antivirus program so I tried that with the same results....
Backup and Restore
Pre-failure and Old-age questions -Drive headed for failure?
Hi, My SMART data reports pre-failure and old age in each category. It says overall health as "Passed". What do these mean and will a simple overwrite help it repair bad parts/sectors, or is this drive headed for failure in the very near future? Is there anything I can do in the interim to...
Hardware & Devices
Bootup Failure/Repair Failure/Corrupted Files
Hi Guys, First post here. I'm very discouraged with my new pc. I just built my first rig from scratch and have been having lots of problems ever since a recent thunderstorm. I made the most idiotic mistake of all time and forgot to plug the PSU AC supply into the surge protector and had it...
BSOD Help and Support
possible hdd failure?
hello, I have a WD 2.5" 500Gb HDD, Ive had it for about 6 months(third hdd). now there is a C5 error/warning. now other than that here is a benchmark: should i be concerned? NOw about the c5 warning, it says there are two unstable sectors, should i just defragment and then run chkdsk?
Hardware & Devices
HD failure or Windows 7 failure?
Today my Windows 7 Home Premium started giving me problems. After freezing a couple of times it finally wouldn't start up, directing me to Startup Repair. The Startup Repair it automatically redirected me to would freeze when I got to "System Recovery Options" without allowing me to choose one of...
General Discussion


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:53.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App