You are not logged in.
On my IBM Thinkpad T43p my brand new Sandisk Titanium 2GB is really slow. I copied a 350MB file to the drive and it only copied 21MB in 30 minutes.
Is there anything I can do to make it go faster? On my Windows box it took only 1.5 minutes to copy the same 350MB file.
Last edited by jason (2007-05-24 17:54:19)
Offline
Is there anything I can do to make it go faster?
Yes, find the problem and fix it. this isn't normal ie, lets just make it go faster.
What have you ascertained so far apart from its as slow as p*ss?
What other info can you give apart from the windows box is (probably) handling it ok and the thinkpad/titanium isn't.
some ideas;
Did it do this as a one-off or is it always slow? what did you use to copy the file? what usb system have you software wise on the laptop? what usb modules?
did it go at uniform speed, or go quick then slow to a crawl? was anything else taking up cpu/memory/ports?
Has the file or filesystem on the SD been corrupted? ie did you remove the drive from windows without using the "safely remove hardware" button? Did you move instead of copy?
also, simple as it seems, maybe check the connection. its reported that the titanium models can be awkward to fit, ie wiggly.
Offline
When copying to the device it is very slow. Copying from the device is fast.
$ time cp /mnt/usb1/lol.avi ~
real 0m27.008s
user 0m0.028s
sys 0m2.232s
$ time cp lol.avi /mnt/usb1
real 1m51.135s
user 0m0.012s
sys 0m0.044s
I interrupted that one after it only copied 1.4MB.
$ lsmod | grep usb
usb_storage 78656 1
usbserial 29704 1 ftdi_sio
usbcore 111752 6 usb_storage,ehci_hcd,uhci_hcd,ftdi_sio,usbserial
ide_core 111688 2 usb_storage,generic
The filesystem should be okay. fsck.vfat gives no errors.
I've tried both usb slots and a change did not help and it also seems unlikely that it was a physical problem since the reading is fine.
Thanks for asking for more information.
Offline
I can piss quite fast...seems a strange measure of speed....
Offline
Yeah I guess it's all relative.
Offline
i avoided the obvious fast piss comment ..... maybe the lappie is usb 1.1. for that i think you need the ohci_hcd modules ... if its any help, heres my grep
lsmod | grep usb
usb_storage 78656 0
ide_core 111688 2 amd74xx,usb_storage
usbhid 36128 0
hid 24448 1 usbhid
ff_memless 5256 1 usbhid
usbcore 111752 6 uhci_hcd,usb_storage,usbhid,ohci_hcd,ehci_hcd
edit:
have you got hwd in your rc.conf DAEMONS line ?
Last edited by Kern (2007-05-24 17:18:35)
Offline
I added hwd and it didn't help. Pretty sure that machine is a USB 2.0 machine.
Last edited by jason (2007-05-24 17:40:46)
Offline
Looks like the automounting stuff mounts as sync instead of async. That's why it was so slow writing.
Offline
well done, and thanks for feeding back. benefits others
Offline
turn on async for usb writes
Offline
...or better "flush" if it's a vfat partition.
Offline
Why is flush better than async?
Offline
This a new option for external usb devices formatted as vfat. According to the kernel changlog:
FAT: Add "-o flush" mount option for fat for removable media devices (USB flash-based memory devices, MP3 players). Mounting with -o flush tells FAT to write things to disk as quickly as possible. It is like -o sync, but much faster (and not as safe). Think of it like a fast "async" mount
This means that it works like async + automatic sync command on the copying process end. No files are left in the cache so you can safely unplug the device (even without umount). I'm using it for some time for udev automounting and it's working really well. You can search for flush in the forums for more examples but I suggest you to change async to flush and copy some files so you'll just see how it works. If you use midnight commander for copying you'll notice that copying dialog will stay on at the 100% for some time (until the file is really written on the usb device). IMO there is no difference in copying speed between async and flush and you don't have to remember about sync+umount so it's also safer.
Offline