Dan Pritts wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:46:41AM +0200, Tino Schwarze wrote:
>> I'd say: Replace that USB 2.0 disk by something else like something
>> connected via Firewire or eSATA. USB 2.0 is very, very slow, especially
>> for random access.
>
> Hi Tino,
>
> do you have empirical results that show this?
>
> Not having tested it myself, that is exactly the opposite of what i
> would expect.
>
> random access times are dominated primarily by disk head seek time,
> which is gonna be the same no matter what the transport to the drive is.
> So the slower transport won't matter nearly as much with random I/O as
> it will with sequential.
>
> SATA or SAS/SCSI with command queueing should have better random access
> performance than anything without command queueing. However, I don't
> believe firewire has command queueing support, which would suggest that
> this isn't what you're thinking of.
I think USB has a bit more CPU overhead than firewire so firewire would
give somewhat better throughput. But eSATA or a hot-swap internal bay
for a bare SATA drive would be even better.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
