[ale] Microcenter Free USB sticks

[arxaaron]

Just ran a windisease / Linux comparison test using SATA EXT3 formatted
Drive to Drive copies.

Results:
-- Linux exceeded 60 MBps.

-- Windisease:  0 bytes per second (doesn't support open file systems)

Conclusion:
-- Linux is infinitely faster than windisease for transferring data.

Nicest thing is I didn't need to pay criminal extortionists any money
or expose myself to any windisease infections to run the test.  ;-)

peace
aaron


On 2011/02/21, at 14:53 , David Tomaschik wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ron Frazier
> <atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com> wrote:
>> This inspired me to do a bit of spur of the moment testing. I have  
>> a PNY
>> Attache 4GB memory stick, which is supposed to be pretty good. I  
>> think
>> it said high speed on the package, but don't remember for sure. I did
>> some testing writing 5 Ubuntu ISO's to the memory stick and reading  
>> from
>> the stick.
>>
>> For Linux, I just dragged files in the file manager.
>>
>> Linux - copy TO stick FROM internal HDD - 9.6 MBps
>> Linux - copy FROM stick TO internal HDD - 18.3 MBps
>
> Not surprising.  Flash media typically has better read than write  
> performance.
>
>>
>> For comparison.
>>
>> Linux - copy FROM internal sata 5400 RPM HDD TO same HDD different
>> folder - ext4 -> ext4 - 29.4 MBps (It seems to me this should be much
>> faster.)
>> Linux - copy FROM internal sata 5400 RPM HDD TO same HDD different
>> folder - ext4 -> NTFS - 12.1 MBps (I found this interesting.)
>
> Also not surprising.  The NTFS support is most likely the ntfs-3g
> driver, which is implemented in userspace, and is probably sub-optimal
> due to reverse engineering of the NTFS.
>
>> I think about 30 MBps is as fast as I ever get on USB, even to /  
>> from a HDD.
>>
>> Now, here's how Windows did. I used the Teracopy application to copy.
>>
>> Windows - copy TO stick FROM internal HDD - 10 MBps (Slightly faster
>> than Linux.)
>> Windows - copy FROM stick TO internal HDD - 15 MBps (Slightly slower
>> than Linux.)
>>
>> For comparison.
>>
>> Windows - copy FROM internal sata 5400 RPM HDD TO same HDD different
>> folder - NTFS -> NTFS - 18 - 23 MBps (Slightly slower than Linux  
>> ext4 ->
>> ext4.)
>>
>> Here's another interesting point. One other time, on another  
>> computer, I
>> did some testing from ONE internal SATA 7200 RPM drive to ANOTHER
>> internal identical drive on a different sata port.
>>
>> Linux ~ 30 MBps
>> Windows ~ 60 MBps
>
> This surprises me somewhat, but I suspect filesystems play a big  
> role in this.
>
>> Windows was twice as fast. Something other than the interface is  
>> slowing
>> Linux down. However, I was thinking I should be over 200 MBps on  
>> both,
>> considering the 3 Gbps interfaces. Also, none of these experiments  
>> even
>> make the CPU breathe hard.
>
> The speed of the interface far exceeds the speed of reading from
> spinning platters, especially if seeking is involved.  (This is why
> fragmentation is terrible.)  According to Seagate, the internal
> transfer rate of SATA drives is about 1/3 of the interface speed.  So
> a purely-linear read task should yield about 100 MBps.  Of course, it
> takes LARGE files to make read/write tests useful unless you purposely
> disable various caching mechanisms.  (And then you still have to deal
> with filesystem overhead.)
>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
>
> -- 
> David Tomaschik, RHCE, LPIC-1
> System Administrator/Open Source Advocate
> OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
> http://systemoverlord.com
> david at systemoverlord.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo