PDA

View Full Version : External USB - slower than internal IDE?



kilolima
14th July 2006, 09:55 PM
Hi all,

I would like to run FC5 off a USB external drive connected to a HP pavilion laptop (athlon xp-m 3000, 512 MB RAM). Will I notice any sort of speed drop compared to running it from an internal IDE? The USB external drive is EIDE 7200rpm 8MB cache 120 GB, and it was previously in a now defunct soltek mini-pc w/ an Athlon 2200 CPU with 512 MB RAM.

Are USB externals any slower than an EIDE internal? Will important productivity-enhancing apps like Enemy Territory run?

Also, with it require a fresh install of FC5 on the external USB? Or can it magically detect the new hardware?

cheers,

kilolima

gundark
14th July 2006, 10:02 PM
From what I understand as long as the port is USB2.0 you should see faster speeds, if you have USB1.0 then no, as far as like changing the drive from internal to external, the big problem I see being if you are using LVM. If you are I know that any time I have changed my hardware configureation as far as drives go it messes up the LVM and the computer no longer boots until I put the hardware back the way it was, so, I would say fresh install.

lazlow
14th July 2006, 10:12 PM
I just use my usb drives as backup but I would say they are much much slower. They will do everything, just slower. Yes they are usb2.0. usb1.1 is slow enough to make you cry.

lazlow

kilolima
14th July 2006, 10:41 PM
Is USB slower than running knoppix off a CD, or linux from a USB flash drive? Flash drives are faster than IDE, right? Is the difference noticeable when they both come thru USB?

I would just like to be able to load KDE, run amarok, and do LAMP web devel with the Kate editor.

gundark
14th July 2006, 11:10 PM
usb 1.0= 1.1 Mbytes/second
usb 2.0 =480Mbytes/second
ide channel = 700+ Mbytes/second
ide drive = 72Mbytes/second
according to the web?

Firewing1
14th July 2006, 11:22 PM
Well, that IDE drive speed depends on the hard drive you buy...

[ I'm gonna rant - skip to the end if you want the real answer... ]

I do tons of USB work (huge files, backups) and I agree 1.1 is enough to make you cry... It transfers about 1MB / second, so you're sitting there like when you tried to download your Red Hat 9 updates on 56k dialup. When I had USB 1.1, I was using it mainly for my MP3 player and got fed up after only a day or two. Spent 30$, got a USB 2.0 PCI card, and what a difference! It can transfer my whole 512MB mp3 player in only a few minutes, and when copying to my external hard drive it can copy GBs at a time in only a few minutes.

[ /rant lol ]

You'll notice a difference in USB 2.0, for example when starting up since it access lots of files in a short amount of time it'll be slower, but once it's up and running you should be fine. I'm not saying there won't be a speed difference, but it won't be horrible.

Firewing1

ccrvic
15th July 2006, 03:35 PM
usb 2.0 =480Mbytes/second


Wrong!

USB 2.0 gives you a *peak* speed of 480Mbits/sec. That's about 60Mbytes/sec.

So even if you achieve full whack, you're still about half the burst speed of an ATA133 drive.

USB drives are useful for a whole load of stuff, but speed records are not their forte.

Vic.

Thetargos
17th July 2006, 11:48 AM
Wrong!

USB 2.0 gives you a *peak* speed of 480Mbits/sec. That's about 60Mbytes/sec.

So even if you achieve full whack, you're still about half the burst speed of an ATA133 drive.

USB drives are useful for a whole load of stuff, but speed records are not their forte.

Vic.
Right... Alas, I've NEVER seen an ATA-133 drive deliver higher than 50Mb/sec speeds, A-ATA is a bit better (in my experience peaking at about 55-60Mb/sec), ATA-100, usually yields 40-45Mb/sec

Firewing1
17th July 2006, 10:08 PM
I just installed to my USB hard drive using this (http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=116549&highlight=usb) great howto ats_fc5 provided - The install went normally, I generated the boot ISO images, and when I booted up to my suprise I noticed almost no difference in speed between my real hard drive. Go for it!
Firewing1

ShizlacTheGreat
18th July 2006, 05:30 AM
What about a 10,000 rpm harddrive on a channel of it's own?

Firewing1
18th July 2006, 05:43 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK a 10k RPM hard drive won't increase the amount of data passed but just provide it quicker.
Firewing1

ShizlacTheGreat
18th July 2006, 06:06 AM
Bandwidth always seems to be bottlenecked somewhere, either FSB or a crappy ol 7200 rpm HD on the same channel as the cd drive will do it. Sorry to butt in here, ill butt right on back out.