Flashdrive Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
6

69Rixter

Guest
I have a Kingston 16Gb 2.0 flashdrive (pendrive). I'm transferring music files (about 9.6GB) and it's taking (according to MSWin7) almost an hour??? Seems something's wrong here(?). I would like to hear input on/about just what 'performance" I should be getting with this equipment.

[Dell Optiplex 9020---Kingston digital 16Gb DataTraveler 101 G2 USB 2.0 Drive]

It seems to me, I should be getting much higher transfer rates???? It's varying from 2.14 down to 2.1 mb's/sec.

Rick
 
I don't know the specs on that exact pendrive. But generally speaking the best you can achieve on usb 2.0 is about 20MB/s. And sadly there are plenty of usb 2.0 pendrives out there that only do in the area of 5MB/s at the best of times. So you may have one of those.

What you can do to try and optimise your speed is make sure that write caching is turned on for the pendrive, in Windows. And that's about it really.
 
Pandur said:
I don't know the specs on that exact pendrive. But generally speaking the best you can achieve on usb 2.0 is about 20MB/s. And sadly there are plenty of usb 2.0 pendrives out there that only do in the area of 5MB/s at the best of times. So you may have one of those.

What you can do to try and optimise your speed is make sure that write caching is turned on for the pendrive, in Windows. And that's about it really.
Click to expand...


RE: Pandur

Appreciate your response. OK, good suggestion about "write caching" for the drive. I wasn't aware it would improve transfer rate. Ahm...as far as the specs for the drive, I'm not sure what they are, either. Here is the complete description of the device:


Kingston Digital 16GB DataTraveler 101 G2 USB 2.0 Drive - Black (DT101G2/16GBZ)

Believe it or not, I have a 10y/o 2Gb Kingston pendrive that has better transfer rates. As you mentioned, the 16GB SHOULD be transferring in the neighborhood of 5 Mb/sec, and this one is not even half that??? BTW, the 9.6 GB's I transferred to the drive.... took over 45 mins. Absolutely unacceptable!!!!

Stay Sharp:

Rick
 
I assume that Dell has USB 3.0, get yourself a good USB 3.0 flash drive like the Sandisk Extreme and it’ll be a huge improvement.

USB 2.0 sucks.
 
Yeah things have moved on. I have a 128GB Lexar that pushes 420MBps!

I tested my 'best' USB2.0 stick that I still have in use (OCZ Rally2 4GB - Just use it as a utilities stick cos it just works) and that pushes 38.5MBps read which is top end for USB2.0 but it only does 11.5MBps write. But 12 years ago that was probably pretty good.

I did find a 10 year old cheap Sandisk Cruzer 8GB and that tops out at 31MBps read and just 6MBps Write.

Yuk.
 
Speedeu4ia said:
Exactly!! You can buy is 3.0 drives that are no faster than 2.0 drives
Click to expand...

this. USB 3.0 doesn't mean the drive will transfer faster than usb 2.0 speeds. Look at the read and write specs before buying. It's like SATA 3 (6Gbps) hard drives. The hard drives don't actually transfer data at 750MB/s.
 
Re: speedeu4ia & lateralus ; Reread my original post. I did not ask for nor want your 'opinions" concerning the pendrive.

To: all whom have replied... I understand the difference between 2.0 and 3.0. I'm not debating that aspect. I feel, even at 2.0, the drive should be 'transferring" data at a much higher rate!(?) The responses here also indicate that! I did find an article that suggested changing the drives 'policies" to write cache; doing so would increase transfer rate? However, when searching for that option in "policies", it was not offered??? Again, something's screwed! I read an article concerning this particular pendrive and was directed to a sub-article that explained there was a major intrusion of "knockoff" pendrives disguising themselves as "Kingston digital 16Gb DataTraveler 101 G2 USB 2.0 Drive" and I'm guessing I've obtained one of those??? OK, that aside, still...shouldn't a "normal" 2.0 flashdrive write @ better than 2.1 Mbs/sec? (the original text of my thread).

RE: Lateralus..... Of course the comp has a 3.0 USB port... just about every comp manufactured since 2007 has; however, my thread question was not concerned with that.

Keep pushin' on:

Rick
 
just could be overhead from copying and verifying so many small music files.

try copying a large file, few hundred megs in size and see if it maintains a faster write speed.
 
69Rixter said:
Re: speedeu4ia & lateralus ; Reread my original post. I did not ask for nor want your 'opinions" concerning the pendrive.
Click to expand...

You have proven your pen drive sucks as a fact, there is no opinion about it. You asked why it was slower that YOU thought it should be and got the answer you didnt like

Run CrystalDiskMark benchmark on the pendrive and it will confirm what we already know that it sucks

As zepher said and the benchmark will confirm, transferring many small files is always way slower to transfer that 1 large file


Knockoffs are a thing on Amazon/ebay especially, currently an issue with sd cards

"OK, that aside, still...shouldn't a "normal" 2.0 flashdrive write @ better than 2.1 Mbs/sec?"

The spec of this drive from kingston is Up To 10Mb/sec read and Up To 5Mbs/sec write, and there is NO NORMAL!

so you may very well have a knockoff which the benchmark will confirm, but your not far off the low 5Mb/sec stated speed while using many small files

Either way its 2018, Buy another $10 flashdrive from a reputable vendor and get 30 mins of you life back
 
Last edited:
Lol! Ol’ Persnickety Rick.

I just worked a 16 hour day fighting an old Nortel phone system that likes to prevent dozens of phones from working after almost every power outage, and I have several days’ worth of virus removal ahead of me thanks to an employee falling for the ol’ “Hey, click this random link in a suspicious email” trick and causing an entire site with 100+ computers to become infected. So to come home and read your snarky reply when I was simply suggesting that you spend a little bit of money on a proven fast drive and move on with your life was...interesting. I get it, you’d rather get to the root of the issue and probably don’t appreciate being told to go buy another drive if there’s an underlying issue with your current setup that can be solved for free. Heck, maybe it’s not even about the money and you just want to know for curiosity’s sake.

We could try to help you troubleshoot the write cache policy issue, but as Speediu4ia pointed out, even changing that setting isn’t likely to make a big difference in the performance of your drive. You’re transferring small files with what may very well be a gimped, knock-off version of a drive that’s not very fast even if it’s the genuine real deal.

You know, I just might have one of those Kingston digital 16GB DataTraveler 101 G2 USB 2.0 Drives in a drawer that I could use to transfer a similar set of files and compare my results with yours, along with going over some of the USB policy settings. But you’d have to promise that you can play with a little more sugar and a little less salt. :ROFLMAO:
 
OK, I don't call 350 -460 Mb's 'small files". I think you are mistaken in assuming I'm just copying a song or 2. However, even that isn't what I'm asking about. 3 x's I've asked "Shouldn't any normal 2.0 "drive" write faster than 2-2.4 Mb's/sec?" Yes, I agree there's something wrong. And I take offense at all you who say throw it away. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT (if it can be determined) IS THE PROBLEM!! I guess that's TOO much to ask (?)

LATERALUS and Speedeu4ia: I didn't want t know about YOUR day. NOBODY here does!!! I I haven't 'proven a thing" and neither have you except that your opinion sucks. I HAVEN"T gotten an answer. NOONE has "proven", or explained anything. Zepher has commented that it MAY be due to 'small" files and I would have to determine what he or what is considered a small file. What I was transferring where multiple files that ranged in the 360-450 Mb's and totaled 9.5 Gb's. All I've asked is shouldn't a 2.0 USB pendrive "write" (normally) at a faster rate than 2.1-2.4 Mb's/sec. I don't have to have opinions of the drive...I don't need to read about somebody feeling sorry for himself...I don't care what somebody that doesn't have all the facts, thinks about the drive. I did ask 2 respondents here to reread the original thread because I feel they didn't interpret it properly. Tell ya what...LATERALUS, do yourself a big favor and DON'T respond to this thread, it's quite obvious you could use the time to rest. And SPEEDEU4IA..."not far off the mark" I would consider less than half speed a ways 'off the low mark" but, then that's just MY opinion. If it's alright with you, I'll possess one.
ZEPHER: Thanx for responding and I'll look up those specs and see what this drive reports. Get back to you on that later. I'm not so sure there can be anything done to speed this drive up. I just wanted to determine that it should be written at a better rate than 2.1-2.4 Mb's/sec. And yes, it's 'older" and I can STILL use it even if it's slow. I have 3 large 3.0 USB pendrives and yes, they do transfer exceptionally faster, but then it wasn't that long ago that 2.0 was the "thing" and it was fine for everyone then and still is now. Yes, perhaps "slower" than 3.0...so what!!!

All Calm Down:

Rick
 
its all down to the quality of the chips inside. just because it says USB 2 or 3 doesn't change the guts. this aft I picked up a Lexar 64GB S37 drive it is USB 3 and has read/write of 150/60mb max. my little sister has the 64GB S33 also USB 3 but different chips inside and it tops out at 100/55. the S45 is 64GB USB 3 but 150/45.
your Kingston digital 16Gb DataTraveler 101 G2 is 10/5mb. so its reeeeeaaaally slow to write to by decent pendrive standards. does that make it any clearer?
 
Rick...the NAND inside your flash drives suck...okay? That's the problem...the rating is simply it's theoretical max performance....take your bicycle on the highway, your top speed is 10mph even though you can go 55! take it on the freeway, you're still going 10mph...take it on the autoban, guess how fast your going!

Maybe it's just poor quality so it's throttled down to work, maybe it's very few NAND channels so it can't go in parallelism as much.
 
OK...it's been confirmed!!! The drive SHOULD be writing at a much higher rate than it is. Whatever the reasons for that are, at this time, irrelevant! Pendragon1 & ajrettke33 ...Thanx for the info! I really think it's time to close this thread before someone pops their cork. One simple little question and sooo many come unglued. You all....GET A GRIP and get over yourselves!!! ajrettke33; Zepher; mnewxcv; daglesj; pendragon1 and pandur... Thanx for your input!!

Keep Pushin' On;

Rick

P.S. Where does one cite this thread as closed? Been all over forum trying to find it?
 
you can close it at the top of this page, click the thread tools button.
 
69Rixter said:
RE: Lateralus..... Of course the comp has a 3.0 USB port... just about every comp manufactured since 2007 has; however, my thread question was not concerned with that.
Click to expand...

Uh, try 2011 and onwards for that to be true, especially laptops. I have an old Corsair case from 2011 that didn't come with front usb 3.0 ports. You had to run a cable to the rear mobo ports.

FYI there are some good deals out there on decent lexar usb 2.0 drives still. Good for utility drives, OS installers, some media stuff.
 
69Rixter said:
OK, I don't call 350 -460 Mb's 'small files". I think you are mistaken in assuming I'm just copying a song or 2. However, even that isn't what I'm asking about. 3 x's I've asked "Shouldn't any normal 2.0 "drive" write faster than 2-2.4 Mb's/sec?" Yes, I agree there's something wrong. And I take offense at all you who say throw it away. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT (if it can be determined) IS THE PROBLEM!! I guess that's TOO much to ask (?)

LATERALUS and Speedeu4ia: I didn't want t know about YOUR day. NOBODY here does!!! I I haven't 'proven a thing" and neither have you except that your opinion sucks. I HAVEN"T gotten an answer. NOONE has "proven", or explained anything. Zepher has commented that it MAY be due to 'small" files and I would have to determine what he or what is considered a small file. What I was transferring where multiple files that ranged in the 360-450 Mb's and totaled 9.5 Gb's. All I've asked is shouldn't a 2.0 USB pendrive "write" (normally) at a faster rate than 2.1-2.4 Mb's/sec. I don't have to have opinions of the drive...I don't need to read about somebody feeling sorry for himself...I don't care what somebody that doesn't have all the facts, thinks about the drive. I did ask 2 respondents here to reread the original thread because I feel they didn't interpret it properly. Tell ya what...LATERALUS, do yourself a big favor and DON'T respond to this thread, it's quite obvious you could use the time to rest. And SPEEDEU4IA..."not far off the mark" I would consider less than half speed a ways 'off the low mark" but, then that's just MY opinion. If it's alright with you, I'll possess one.
ZEPHER: Thanx for responding and I'll look up those specs and see what this drive reports. Get back to you on that later. I'm not so sure there can be anything done to speed this drive up. I just wanted to determine that it should be written at a better rate than 2.1-2.4 Mb's/sec. And yes, it's 'older" and I can STILL use it even if it's slow. I have 3 large 3.0 USB pendrives and yes, they do transfer exceptionally faster, but then it wasn't that long ago that 2.0 was the "thing" and it was fine for everyone then and still is now. Yes, perhaps "slower" than 3.0...so what!!!

All Calm Down:

Rick
Click to expand...

LaughMJ.gif


You're wrong, Rick. This is a community who generally does care about each other and how their day is going. Not one that yells at one another because they didn't GET the SPECIFIC ANSWER they were LOOKING FOR.

I've been here since 2004 and can't come up with any reason why I should be talked down to by an old grouchy guy with a crappy flash drive. I even offered to test my drive and compare its results with yours.

If you didn't like some of the replies that you were getting, you could have simply moved on to one that you did like instead of deriding other members and making snide remarks about how much you disapprove.

And it's ironic that you ended your post with "All Calm Down" when everyone here is calm except you. Maybe you should take your own advice.

Good luck closing the thread and feel free to take the attitude elsewhere, or add me to your ignore list. You might be the first to make mine.
 
Last edited:
So while I wait for crystalmark and anvil to test my kingston datatraveller 100 g2 for my amusement, I can report that in win7, on an older 2011 mobo that has had cranky usb 3.0 ports for most of its life, on a rear 2.0 port, the drive topped out at 8 MB/s for a 175mb zip file and a 750mb file. The lowest speed noticed was 3 MB/s while using teracopy on the 750mb file.

Anyway, usb flash drives all vary based on their chips, the mobos can vary and just be cranky with all drives or some.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-8_15-44-39.png
    upload_2018-2-8_15-44-39.png
    211.6 KB · Views: 14
Morning:

Well, got the 'read only" issue solved, yet still the writing/transfer speeds are still excruciatingly slow. I am under the impression, but have not yet determined, that the "problem" MAY" lie within Win7. I just read Ranulfo's reply and he may be(?) of that opinion also. So, since there's no college BB games I really want to watch today, I'll have time on my hands to do some testing (experimenting) on this drive and the Win7. I now tend to think there is nothing wrong with this pendrive. One rather odd issue I'm seeing is that in Win7, it does not show the 'write caching" policy when I open the policies "window". Hmmm.... again, this could all boil down to Win7 being a P.O.S.!!! Will let you all know what I "discover" in a few days.

Keep Pushin' On:

Rick
 
I'm assuming this is a drive you've had for a while and used quite a bit over time filling it up, erasing files, etc

Here's the thing about flash based storage media, the max write speed is for clean media that has nothing stored on it. Once you write to a flash block, the time for the next write to the same block will almost double because the flash controller has to erase the contents of that block before it can change just one byte, essentially performing two writes.

Deleting files and quick formatting does not erase data, they only remove the file system's links to the data. So the flash blocks where data is still sitting will have to go through an erase cycle when you start sending files to them again.

You averaged almost 75% of the max rated write speed, that's really not too bad if my stated assumptions are correct.




FYI: Signing every post is against the rules here.
 
Rick, I don't think it is a win7 issue. I could also fire up a newer (and lower end tech wise) amd mobo (am3+) that is running win7 and usually recognizes flash drives 5-10s faster than my fx8350 system I used in my test above.

And to be clear, my g100 flashdrive has about 4gb of system utilities and linux OS installers from about 3-5 years ago, so like Ryan said that can affect things.

TLDR: No machine/OS is a clear winner.

Edit with multiple OS test results:

Win8 Laptop (2.0 port):
win8Kingstontest.jpg

Win10Laptop (only has usb 3.0 ports):
kingstonwin10Test.png

2nd Win7 Desktop (rear usb 2.0 port):
kingstonwin7Testamd955.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the drive is dying. Once was fast, now after years of use the controller has got weaker and its no longer performing at optimal speeds.

Look into getting this drive to replace it. I used to have the 32GB version and it was pretty solid up until the day I lost it.
https://smile.amazon.com/SanDisk-Ul...18469280&sr=1-3&keywords=16gb+usb+flash+drive

Been using the 32GB version of this for my school files lately:
https://smile.amazon.com/SanDisk-Cr...18469280&sr=1-4&keywords=16gb+usb+flash+drive
 
this is on topic; your pendrive is rated at 10/5mb that is why it is slow. use your faster drives or buy another new one for $20.
 
Re: pendragon1 Yes, I know that's it's rating/benchmark. And I would be content if that's what it would run at. However, and this is in my posts, the drive, now, writes @ 2.2Mb/s (avg.) This is after removing a 'read only" designation. I wish to close this thread. Having difficult time finding out how-to!

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top