Very slow copies when using USB Flash drive

English support forum

Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2

User avatar
Black Dog
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 2003-02-05, 22:17 UTC
Location: Odessa
Contact:

Post by *Black Dog »

[face=courier]On 29-03-2004 02:02:59 +0000 OliverPA wrote:

O> I apologize for responding to you as I had already noticed
O> your aggressive attitude towards posters with differing
O> oppinions - I should've known better.


Well, apology accepted.[/face]
OliverPA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2004-01-24, 18:04 UTC
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by *OliverPA »

Janus wrote: 1 - If your PC is NTFS, can achieve the same performance in transfer speed with your flash drive if you format it as FAT32 than if you format it as NTFS?
2 - Can you use 100% of capacity with FAT32?
3 - Why do you use a 512k allocation unit size?
1) Usually the FAT family of filesystems is faster than the more complicated NTFS, however this also depends on the characteristics of the files stored on the volume, eg. reading/writing of small files should favor NTFS as it can store the data within the MFT entry, thus eliminating the need to seek the to another position on the volume (less of a concern on non-mechanical devices as usb-sticks). Also searching is much faster on NTFS volumes because the directories content is once again stored within the MFT entries.

2) All filesystem based on fixed-size sectors exhibit some kind of wasted space when storing files who's size is not a multiple of the sector size. Add to that the space needed for the data management. Generally large sectors have the disadvantage of wasting more space for files with a big discrepancy between their size and the sector size, while small sectors add a burden on the file management as more sectors have to be remembered. The ideal size depends once again on the type of data that is to be stored. NTFS has other advanced features besides storing small files within the MFT such as compression of files (sometimes highly effective, mostly not, though) which only works with a sector size of 4kb and sparse files which don't allocate space for sectors containing nothing but zero's.

3) Contrary to NTFS you need to use bigger sectors to allow for bigger volumes when using FAT, but this is probably not needed in this case as we're talking about usb-sticks.

PS: NTFS, which I'm clearly a fan of :), has one other characteristic: Though using it for many years I haven't managed to lose any files due to filesystem corruption - quite contrary to my experiences with the FAT's. NTFS's data recoverability is really quite robust for everday tasks.
User avatar
r2mahara
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2004-03-29, 18:38 UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by *r2mahara »

Perhaps you can try the option in TC to not check free space before a copy?

If that is convenient to you that is. It might speed things up a little.
silber1
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2003-10-18, 07:56 UTC
Location: Erlangen

Post by *silber1 »

I had also the problem of slow writing to the usb stick (600 kb/s).

Using SEND TO and insert the drivename of the stick, I got the 6 MB/s as advertised for the stick!!! :lol: :lol:

So it is a problem of TTcomander and not the stick!!

Gerhard
User avatar
Francois
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2003-02-09, 20:04 UTC

Post by *Francois »

Had the same problem with a Cruzer Mini 256MB under WinXP Pro SP1 and USB 2.0. Had about 140 Kb/s for writing. Enabled compatibility mode (Configuration-> Options -> Copy/Delete -> "Use compatibility mode for the folowing drives:") and have now about 1'400 Kb/s, which is enough for me.
silber1
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2003-10-18, 07:56 UTC
Location: Erlangen

Post by *silber1 »

It also helped to get 3 Mb/sec and more with my stick.
Gerhard
Post Reply