View Full Version : 2.0 vs 1.1 USB
I recently purchased an external hard drive to handle backups and I found the transfer speed very poor. Nearly six hours to transfer 20gb from my hard drive to my external drive. I have an older computer with a 1.1 USB hub and I understand that most USB equipment these days is designed for a 2.0. How much of a difference in transfer speed is there between these hubs? Could it account for this much of a difference in transfer speed?
jon 0
09-16-2007, 01:00 PM
yes, 2 is much faster
USB 1.1 = 12 Mbit/s USB= 480 Mbit/s. You may also be having compatibility issues with 1.1 and some new drives. Make sure you external is 1.1 compliant. And yes it will be a hell of a lot slower.
Lazlo
09-17-2007, 12:42 PM
Is the the computer itself that is limited to 1.1, or is it the hub your are using? A 1.1 hub will limit a 2.0 computer to 1.1, i.e., slow.
If it's your motherboard that's limited to 1.1, you could try one of these 2.0 adapters (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=usb+2.0+pci+card&x=0&y=0), they're quite cheap. I bought one for my notebook (PCMCIA-based) and it works pretty well for most stuff. Do some research to find a model that supports what you need to do on the OS you're using.
Is the the computer itself that is limited to 1.1, or is it the hub your are using? A 1.1 hub will limit a 2.0 computer to 1.1, i.e., slow.
If it's your motherboard that's limited to 1.1, you could try one of these 2.0 adapters (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=usb+2.0+pci+card&x=0&y=0), they're quite cheap. I bought one for my notebook (PCMCIA-based) and it works pretty well for most stuff. Do some research to find a model that supports what you need to do on the OS you're using.
The problem is not with the hubs, but with the computer itself. I can put in a PCI board to provide 2.0 service and that's what I'll do.
Thanks
Scott Pruett
12-23-2007, 10:57 AM
Firewire is moving to 3.2gbps next year. FW2 has been at 800mbps for a while.
mingo
12-23-2007, 11:19 AM
Don't ask me why, but I find moving smaller sections faster than moving the whole enchalada.
I have a folder on my external with several exe files. Moving the entire folder can take much longer than just the individual exe files. Video is way slow to move off the external but plays on the external at a normal streaming rate. I've left the external FAT32 rather than convert it NTFS.
dan_nc
12-23-2007, 11:23 AM
Don't ask me why, but I find moving smaller sections faster than moving the whole enchalada.
I have a folder on my external with several exe files. Moving the entire folder can take much longer than just the individual exe files. Video is way slow to move off the external but plays on the external at a normal streaming rate. I've left the external FAT32 rather than convert it NTFS.
Are you using windows explorer to move the files or are you using a multi-threaded application? Using windows explorer really bites. The speed is horrible, and if it craps out in the middle of the operation it just sort of dies right there, no retries. "Time remaining" has very little basis in reality.
Use a multi-threaded file mover with retries and restarts and you'll see better throughput and more versatility.
franksam
12-27-2007, 04:25 AM
I recently purchased an external hard drive to handle backups and I found the transfer speed very poor. Nearly six hours to transfer 20gb from my hard drive to my external drive. I have an older computer with a 1.1 USB hub and I understand that most USB equipment these days is designed for a 2.0. How much of a difference in transfer speed is there between these hubs? Could it account for this much of a difference in transfer speed?
2.0 is much much faster - you will notice the difference.