Seagate Backup Plus USB drive - speed discrepency  

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

  1. Posts : 172
    Windows10
       #1

    Seagate Backup Plus USB drive - speed discrepency


    Hello -
    I have this 1TB USB drive currently attached to my PC and it's working normally.

    By this I mean no errors and reasonable performance. It's USB 3 capable,
    but the motherboard is USB 2 only.

    The system is recent but modest, AMD FX 4300 paired with an ASRock 960GC-GS FX motherboard.

    If I copy big files from the internal HDD to the Seagate in Windows 10 I get about 27 MB p/s
    It took 30 seconds to copy an 800MB file.

    However, on the same PC, using a recent Linux ( Peppermint OS based on Ubuntu) I see speeds
    almost double @ 50-52 MB p/s and it took about 16 seconds to copy the same file

    That's a massive difference. According to this, the Linux is achieving speeds close the theoretical maximum:
    usb - Whats the maximum typical speed possible with a USB2.0 drive? - Super User

    If this is so, then I have to ask, why is it slow in Windows 10 ?
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 7,756
    windows 10
       #2

    A lot depends on how you copy ie explorer, CMD prompt and often anti virus can cause it as it will scan on read and write
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 172
    Windows10
    Thread Starter
       #3

    Samuria said:
    A lot depends on how you copy ie explorer, CMD prompt and often anti virus can cause it as it will scan on read and write
    This was easy enough for me to test, first the CMD prompt, then the CMD prompt with Windows Defender
    realtime protection turned off. I have to report that it had no effect, still 30 seconds each time,
    +/- one second.
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 501
    Windows 10
       #4

    Linux is usually faster in both USB 2.0 and USB 3.0, in the same hardware. Also when the operations are performed from boot media. I think its mainly because of differences in the USB drivers used by Windows and Linux.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 172
    Windows10
    Thread Starter
       #5

    I'm willing to accept driver design and optimizations, etc,etc, but this much difference?
    Linux is almost twice as fast.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 13,166
    Win10 Version 21H2 Pro and Home, Win11 Pro and Home
       #6

    That ASRock board has 1 PCIe X1 slot that would allow doing what I did [for a different reason on my Win10]. I wanted more USB 3.0 ports so added an older Anker 4-port card, a quite inexpensive upgrade.
    Several choices at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...rds=usb+3+card
    Last edited by Berton; 30 Jul 2017 at 16:30.
      My Computers


  7. Posts : 172
    Windows10
    Thread Starter
       #7

    Berton said:
    That ASRock board has 1 PCIe X1 slot that would allow doing what I did [for a different reason on my Win10]. I wanted more USB 3.0 ports so added an older Anker 4-port card, a quite inexpensive upgrade.
    Several choices at https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...rds=usb+3+card
    Thanks for the link to USB add-on cards, since the Seagate BUP slim is a USB 3 device,
    I would expect a significant performance gain.. This is something I can think about.

    But it doesn't really answer the question as to why Windows 10 utilization of the existing
    USB 2 ports is poor compared to Linux. Is this one of those "things" people have just gotten
    used to in Windows , nobody questions it anymore ?
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 13,166
    Win10 Version 21H2 Pro and Home, Win11 Pro and Home
       #8

    I see the difference between my Win10 and my Linux Mint 18.2 computer but it is not a great amount. Could be drivers but the age of the computer may also be involved, my Linux is an older Dell Inspiron 580 Desktop I was given and rehabbed a few years ago and my Win10 is an ASUS M52BC_M32BC I got new last November. According to WikiPedia [and other sources], USB 1.1 speed was 12Mbps, USB 2.0/HighSpeed was 'up to' 480Mbps, USB 3.0/SuperSpeed is 625Mbps. USB 3.0 - Wikipedia
      My Computers


  9. Posts : 9,593
    Mac OS Catalina
       #9

    That is because Fat32 uses a different block structure and the CRC is so out of date. You go to Linux and copy to a Ext4 formatted drive, you will see it go faster. If Fat32, you will still see it go faster, because Linus designed the kernel to be very efficient in CRC and copying in chunks of data that are going to depend on what little bit of cache there is on a hard drive.

    The other is that Windows dedicates to a foreground process when moving or copying files, where as Linux does it in the background with the Cron job being told that if something else is running or wanting to run and needs that bandwidth, it will change the data chunks to allow a higher priority process to come up front.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 172
    Windows10
    Thread Starter
       #10

    bro67 said:
    That is because Fat32 uses a different block structure and the CRC is so out of date. You go to Linux and copy to a Ext4 formatted drive, you will see it go faster. If Fat32, you will still see it go faster, because Linus designed the kernel to be very efficient in CRC and copying in chunks of data that are going to depend on what little bit of cache there is on a hard drive.

    The other is that Windows dedicates to a foreground process when moving or copying files, where as Linux does it in the background with the Cron job being told that if something else is running or wanting to run and needs that bandwidth, it will change the data chunks to allow a higher priority process to come up front.
    OK I'll research further to see what else I can find. My drive is NTFS, 1TB external HDD not FAT32
      My Computer


 

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 10 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 10" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:14.
Find Us




Windows 10 Forums