Prev: S.M.A.R.T. reallocated sector count failure
Next: SES-2 over I2C == multimaster I2C?
From: bxf on 22 Oct 2006 12:01
There are no great solutions here, but you may want to have a look at
these:

http://groups.google.pt/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/browse_thread/thread/e6383317ff28dc89/3f4ecc6f113a0de8?lnk=gst&q=bxf&rnum=3#3f4ecc6f113a0de8
and
http://groups.google.pt/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/browse_thread/thread/6a7f0e96c84b1f18/7d653fc56dda395b?lnk=gst&q=bxf&rnum=1#7d653fc56dda395b

Basically, I've found that my MYBOOK Essentials is impossibly slow if
it remains connected across a restart of Windows. That is, if the drive
is connected and I do a reboot without shutting down. When I find
myself in this situation, I have to fix it by using "Safely Remove
Hardware" then unplugging or replugging the drive, or by sending the
drive into STANDBY using WD's Spindown Utility. Actually, I can just
hit the power button the drive twice (OFF then ON), and that fixes it
as well.

I'd suggest trying " Safely Remove..." to see if your problem is the
same as mine.

Bill


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

From: SHQ on 14 Nov 2006 19:50
HEEEELP! I dont know how to start a new discussion thread so I use this
one. Hope its ok.

I have a WD 250 GB

This drive was working perfectly but one day my system refuses to
recognize it. He says its there but dont know what it is. No WD logo,
No "H:/" .. nothing. A systemreset as far back as a month does not
solve it. At the same time some other USB units does not work all the
time. Could be that I need to update my USB drivers but 5 hrs of
looking on the net at MS and Elitegroup does not solve it.

It does work on other computers but not mine XP.

I tried download drivers from motherboard, SIS but it does not work.
Something tells me I need USB 2.0 drivers to tell my system to get it.

I have also tried 10 other methods to get it working. Can anyone tell
me why it does not appear in explorer anymore?

From: jeslpd-google@yahoo.com on 17 Nov 2006 20:02

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
> 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?

I'm considering this drive myself and have learned it comes formatted
as FAT32. Also, that unless you reformat to NTFS it will be much
slower. This may be in addition to your possible USB 1 problem. In
general this series of drives gets very good reviews. Hope this helps...

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: S.M.A.R.T. reallocated sector count failure
Next: SES-2 over I2C == multimaster I2C?