Prev: S.M.A.R.T. reallocated sector count failure
Next: SES-2 over I2C == multimaster I2C?
From: Olin K. McDaniel on 20 Oct 2006 13:06
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:11:27 -0500, craigm <none(a)domain.invalid>
wrote:

>Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
>
>> I just bought a new Western Digital USB external hard drive, 250 GB in
>> size, called "My Book Essential" and am trying to use it to store some
>> large backup files created with Nova Back, vers. 8 - I think. The
>> files are roughly 4 GB in size with extensions of .nb7, thus the
>> confusion on the actual version at the moment. These files are all on
>> an internal IDE hard drive, and the computer has Windows 2000 on it,
>> and it is claimed to be good for USB 2.0, with 8 such sockets. The
>> CPU is an AMD 3100+.
>>
>> My problem is - these files seem to be taking FAR too long to copy
>> over, for what USB 2.0 claims to be capable of. That claim is for 480
>> Mb/s, which I believe should be the equivalent of about 40 MB/s. For
>> whatever reason these 4 GB files are consistently taking 75 minutes
>> to copy over, which seems absurdly too long for USB 2.0. It's more
>> like USB 1.0 or 1.1.
>>
>> Has anyone else out there got any experience in this area, with this
>> "external" or "Essential" drive? The particular model number of this
>> one is WD2500D032 or the Order No. is WDG1U2500N. I've already plowed
>> around W.D.'s web site, their knowledge base, etc. and still do not
>> have an answer. Any help will be appreciated.
>>
>> Olin McDaniel
>
>
>Are you running W2k with SP4? Do you actually have USB 2.0 drivers running?


I am running W2K with SP-4, but I cannot prove the USB 2.0 drivers are
running. How can I test for this?

Olin

From: Olin K. McDaniel on 20 Oct 2006 13:06
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:56:23 -0700, "Ed Light" <nobody(a)nobody.there>
wrote:

>According to HD Tach, my usb 2 enclosure with my Seagate Barracuda IV in it
>communicates at 29 mb/s but the average serial read is 18. Out of the
>enclosure the average read is in the 30's. I think that's pretty typical.
>Can't say why.
>
>You might download it and see what it says about yours.
>--
>Ed Light
>


Where can I download it, or should I just do a Google search for it?

Olin
From: Olin K. McDaniel on 20 Oct 2006 13:06
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:47:52 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to(a)myweb.nl> wrote:

>"craigm" <none(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message news:Sr4_g.7$Y97.153749(a)news.sisna.com
>> Ed Light wrote:
>>
>> > According to HD Tach, my usb 2 enclosure with my Seagate Barracuda IV in
>> > it communicates at 29 mb/s but the average serial read is 18. Out of the
>> > enclosure the average read is in the 30's. I think that's pretty typical.
>> > Can't say why.
>> >
>> > You might download it and see what it says about yours.
>>
>
>> Serial protocols have significant overhead.
>
>All protocols have overhead, serial just has more.
>
>> As you add an additional level of complexity to the data transfer,
>
>You need more raw transfer speed (bus speed) to transfer the same
>amount of user data.
>
>> the throughput goes down.
>
>Nope, that only applies to the transfer rate ceiling.
>That defines a maximum possible user data throughput for the bus.
>If the needed raw throughput is more than the serial bus can deliver.
>Everything below that fits within the available bandwidth and is not limited.
>
>That does explain(?) the 29MB/s userdata transfer rate vs the 60MB/s
>(480Mb/s) serial bus clock but doesn't explain the low average of 18.
>Based on the average 35MB/s or so his drive can do externally that gives
>you roughly 45MB/s on outer zones, 22MB/s on inner.
>
>That should give you around (29+22)/2 = 26MB/s average.


OK, on all that, except for my data. Unless I'm confused in my
rational between Mb/s and MB/s, for this thing to take 75 minutes
(which is 4500 seconds) to transfer 4 GB (which is 4000 MB), then I'm
only averaging less than 1 MB/s. Not your 22 MB/s at the slowest!!!
How about explaining this if possible.

Incidentally, my initial post was looking for some one who also owns
one of these drives, and checking their experience. Is there anyone
out there who can fit this bill and share observations?

Not to slander this drive too much, but I just found another negative
about it. I hooked it up to an older computer, subsequent to the work
described in my initial post, and let it do its installation of the
software existing on the WD MyBook drive. That includes some form of
a Google package, and the Picasa photo workup program. This older
computer has a dual boot with the choice of Win98SE and Win2000. I
let the MyBook do the same on both systems. Much to my dismay, the
Win98SE began running very jerkily on many, many applications,
including Windows Explorer. Even Win2000 was not behaving as well as
before.

So, I uninstalled those 2 packages from the Win98SE setup, and cleared
all traces from the Registry, and AMAZINGLY things returned to the
previously speedy behavior. Thus I find 2 strikes against this drive
from the start. Wonder what else is to come?

Olin

From: Folkert Rienstra on 20 Oct 2006 18:58
"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4538fd91.6329245(a)news.east.earthlink.net
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:47:52 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
> <see_reply-to(a)myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > "craigm" <none(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message news:Sr4_g.7$Y97.153749(a)news.sisna.com
> > > Ed Light wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to HD Tach, my usb 2 enclosure with my Seagate Barracuda IV in
> > > > it communicates at 29 mb/s but the average serial read is 18. Out of the
> > > > enclosure the average read is in the 30's. I think that's pretty typical.
> > > > Can't say why.
> > > >
> > > > You might download it and see what it says about yours.
> > >
> >
> > > Serial protocols have significant overhead.
> >
> > All protocols have overhead, serial just has more.
> >
> > > As you add an additional level of complexity to the data transfer,
> >
> > You need more raw transfer speed (bus speed) to transfer the same
> > amount of user data.
> >
> > > the throughput goes down.
> >
> > Nope, that only applies to the transfer rate ceiling.
> > That defines a maximum possible user data throughput for the bus.
> > If the needed raw throughput is more than the serial bus can deliver.
> > Everything below that fits within the available bandwidth and is not limited.
> >
> > That does explain(?) the 29MB/s userdata transfer rate vs the 60MB/s
> > (480Mb/s) serial bus clock but doesn't explain the low average of 18.
> > Based on the average 35MB/s or so his drive can do externally that gives
> > you roughly 45MB/s on outer zones, 22MB/s on inner.
> >
> > That should give you around (29+22)/2 = 26MB/s average.
>
>
> OK, on all that, except for my data. Unless I'm confused in my
> rational between Mb/s and MB/s, for this thing to take 75 minutes
> (which is 4500 seconds) to transfer 4 GB (which is 4000 MB),

> then I'm only averaging less than 1 MB/s.

There's a very clear message in there for you.

> Not your 22 MB/s at the slowest!!!

> How about explaining this if possible.

What is there to explain? It's rather obvious.

Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding: USB1 ?

>
> Incidentally, my initial post was looking for some one who also owns
> one of these drives, and checking their experience. Is there anyone
> out there who can fit this bill and share observations?
>
> Not to slander this drive too much, but I just found another negative
> about it. I hooked it up to an older computer, subsequent to the work
> described in my initial post, and let it do its installation of the
> software existing on the WD MyBook drive. That includes some form of
> a Google package, and the Picasa photo workup program. This older
> computer has a dual boot with the choice of Win98SE and Win2000.
> I let the MyBook do the same on both systems. Much to my dismay,
> the Win98SE began running very jerkily on many, many applications,
> including Windows Explorer. Even Win2000 was not behaving as well as
> before.
>
> So, I uninstalled those 2 packages from the Win98SE setup, and cleared
> all traces from the Registry, and AMAZINGLY things returned to the
> previously speedy behavior. Thus I find 2 strikes against this drive
> from the start. Wonder what else is to come?
>
> Olin
From: Folkert Rienstra on 21 Oct 2006 12:23
"Andreas Keppler" <andreas.keppler(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:9m2kj2l6ovglsspfpkgld8md6s2bt17vmd(a)4ax.com
> omcdaniel.abcd(a)mindspring.com (Olin K. McDaniel) wrote:
>
> > I am running W2K with SP-4, but I cannot prove the USB 2.0 drivers are
> > running. How can I test for this?
>
> Do you have a USB2.0-Cardreader for memory-cards? (or a friend of yours!)
>
> You can try if USB2.0 is running by reading a large File from a SD or
> CF-Card (Highspeed) for example!
>
> If you get more than 1 MB/sec, typically 3 to 5 MB/sec with a SD-Card,
> USB2.0 is running!
>
> ---
>
> I have a 250 GB Western Digital mybook pro connected via Firewire to
> my computer and I get 20 to 30 MB/sec.

Which is perfectly attainable with USB too.
I would even go so far as saying that 30MB/s is low for FW.

>
> Better go and buy the cheapest FW-Controller for your Computer,
> it will be much better and faster than USB2.0.

Nope.

>
> Oh, sorry! I forgot that you have the "essential my book" :-(
>
> If you can return it and get a "pro", better do so! :-)
>
>
> Andy
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: S.M.A.R.T. reallocated sector count failure
Next: SES-2 over I2C == multimaster I2C?