How to format USB 3.0 for maximum copying speed?

[yargd]

I have tried many format options such as NTFS 4096 bytes to 64kilobytes.
This is my current NTFS default format. NTFS 4096 bytes

when I format it at NTFS 64kilobytes, the speed is like 150mb/sec but it get stuck at the end for a really long time.

 

[Megahertz07]

Usb 2.0 can reach 480 Mb/s or 60 MB/s
USB 3.0 can reach 5 Gb/s or 625 MB/s
USB 3.1 can reach 10 Gb/s or 1250 MB/s

The bottle neck isn't the USB. The bottle neck is the device.
Even if your USB flash drive has a USB 3.0 or 3.1 communication port, it will not read or write faster then 30 MB/s (on a class 3).
The faster USB flash drive is about 120 MB/s.

I would format as default (Fat 32?)

 

[yargd]

drive has a USB 3.0 or 3.1 communication port, it will not read or write faster then 30 MB/s (on a class 3).
The faster USB flash drive is about 120 MB/s.

I would format as default (Fat 32?)

There is no FAT 32 option for my USB, only NTFS and exFAT

 

[Megahertz07]

Only Windows and Linux can use NTFS.
exFAT is universal. MAC, Windows and Linux can use it.

 

[yargd]

I even plugged it in an usb3 slot.

Is it a bad usb stick?

 

[Megahertz07]

I wouldn't say it's a bad stick.
5 MB/s is normal for cheap USB flash disk.

This is a fast one ADATA DashDrive Elite UE700 32GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive Model AUE700-32G-CBK - Newegg.com

This is ultra fast Amazon.com: SanDisk Extreme CZ80 64GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive - SDCZ80-064G-GAM46: Computers & Accessories

 

[yargd]

This is my USB. Very good review on amazon
Amazon.com: Kingston Digital 128GB Data Traveler 3.0 USB Flash Drive, Green (DTIG4/128GBET): Computers & Accessories

Are the 42,000 files I'm copying the main problem?

 

[yargd]

I wouldn't say it's a bad stick.
5 MB/s is normal for cheap USB flash disk.

This is a fast one ADATA DashDrive Elite UE700 32GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive Model AUE700-32G-CBK - Newegg.com

This is ultra fast Amazon.com: SanDisk Extreme CZ80 64GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive - SDCZ80-064G-GAM46: Computers & Accessories

This is my USB. Very good review on amazon
Amazon.com: Kingston Digital 128GB Data Traveler 3.0 USB Flash Drive, Green (DTIG4/128GBET): Computers & Accessories

Are the 42,000 files I'm copying the main problem?

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Kingston Data Travelers are not speed demons. Perhaps average. I've owned several of them.

You can format it FAT32 using third party format tools if Windows won't do it.

I wouldn't expect allocation unit size to make a major difference in speed. It does affect access speed and the overall usable space, but I've never noticed big differences.

If you want "faster", get a "faster" flash drive. They cost more of course. You can find speed tests of them using Google.

If you read enough reviews of Kingstons on Newegg, you'll see complaints about speed and you'll see a Kingston customer service rep by the name of "Jewel" who tells the complainers to buy a higher grade Kingston drive.

Here's a quote from Jewel. The DTIG3 she refers to is a Data Traveler.

"Hello, I'm Jewel with Kingston Technical Support. We apologize for the confusion about the DTIG3 flash drive. This drive is an entry-level USB 3.0 drive and does not offer performance USB 3.0 speeds. If you are looking for a performance USB 3.0 drive, please consider out DTHX30 which offer 135MB/s write in USB 3.0 ports. For any further assistance, please call us at 1-800-435-0640 (USA and Canada only) M - F 6am - 6pm PT and I or another available Technician will assist you."


The Sandisk Extreme series is pretty speedy.

Generally speaking---large files transfer faster than small files. 100 files totaling 10 GB are likely to transfer faster than 1000 files totaling 10 GB.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Might also help to know a little about the machine you're connecting the device too.
System Info - See Your System Specs

 

[Eric3742]

This also depend on what type of files are you copying.

Copying of flash/thumb drives, HDD, SSD, are all depend as what manufacturer want you to believe.

Also it may depend on how you format the target disk; quick, full, clean -dos method, etc;

Forget about the theory that it will reach, as how and what sort of condition of the source files on HDD and target HDD sectors - even if it can reach half of the theory.
As theory is based on the best the testing environment.

NTFS 4096 bytes is good for small files, but heavy on big file size.
FAT32 is limited although big file size is good, but how about many others small file sizes included in copy and may take a lot of unused storage.



The speed in your picture is depend on the files size and compression of the files.
And also on the each source file location, is it fragment or not.
Fragment take time to read, hence slow the copying process.



If it encountered a file with too high compression, the copying will be that slow.
If it encountered a file without any compression such as text file, the speed will be much faster.

Nos of sizes left = 29 000 MB
Divide by 5.33 MB/s = 5440 sec
5440 sec / 60 = 96 mins <----> 23 hours ? (Is my calculation wrong?)

Number of files copied = 6%
Number of sizes copied = 8%
Depend on how much time it take to copy at this point.
Both do not tally.



This is what i come across.


Copying on all the files in Recovery Partition. (Most files are most probably compressed)
Speed: <10 MB/s From SSD to HDD ext.

Copying videos from ext HDD-1 to ext HDD-2 on using both USB 3.0 ports.
Speed: >22+ MB/s.
Total in size = 79.9GB
Time taken = 1 hour +
Calculation:
80000 MB / 60 /60 = 22+MB/s
80000 MB = 80GB
Divide by 60 mins
Divide by 60 secs
All Video files size compression is same.


So, in your case, the copying should be Half Hour.

Any Logic.

 

[Layback Bear]

The magic words that are misunderstood.

"UP TO"

If every thing is perfect in a perfect world you might get the "UP TO" speed but I doubt it.

@ yargd

Please fill in your system specs completely.

Jack