Copy to USB memory stick really slow?












43















When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question























  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39













  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44
















43















When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question























  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39













  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44














43












43








43


18






When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question














When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk






usb






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 14 '12 at 21:46









EloffEloff

3571414




3571414













  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39













  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44



















  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39













  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44

















Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

– RobotHumans
Apr 14 '12 at 22:43





Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

– RobotHumans
Apr 14 '12 at 22:43













that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 0:37





that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 0:37













The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 0:39







The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 0:39















"I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 20:34





"I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 20:34













Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 20:44





Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 20:44










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















26














Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




To copy 1.8GB




Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.





  • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



  • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.




    • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

    • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.



  • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.





To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows




  • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

  • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

  • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

  • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

  • How do the times compare?






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

    – irrational John
    May 31 '12 at 16:11








  • 2





    This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

    – zrajm
    Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






  • 4





    @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

    – Pithikos
    Oct 20 '14 at 16:00





















7














I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






share|improve this answer































    6














    Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
    wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
    says they fixed the bug.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

      – irrational John
      May 31 '12 at 16:03






    • 3





      @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

      – Marco Ceppi
      May 31 '12 at 16:36











    • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

      – irrational John
      May 31 '12 at 16:54



















    4














    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



    In my case,



    umount /media/usb0
    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


    After that it is coping very fast.






    share|improve this answer
























    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

      – Irfan
      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






    • 17





      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

      – LondonRob
      May 17 '16 at 10:29











    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

      – sergzach
      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01



















    1














    If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






    share|improve this answer

































      1














      When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



      If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






      share|improve this answer
























      • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

        – Ben Lutgens
        Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











      • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

        – A.Danischewski
        Oct 28 '15 at 17:07













      • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

        – Jenny O'Reilly
        Sep 23 '17 at 12:38



















      0














      I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






      share|improve this answer































        -2














        I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


        I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






        share|improve this answer

































          -3














          Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



          Hope this helped






          share|improve this answer






















            protected by Community Mar 17 at 7:19



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            9 Answers
            9






            active

            oldest

            votes








            9 Answers
            9






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            26














            Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





            Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




            The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




            One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



            Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



            Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




            To copy 1.8GB




            Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



            Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




            I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.





            • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



            • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.




              • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

              • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.



            • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.





            To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



            Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows




            • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

            • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

            • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

            • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

            • How do the times compare?






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2





              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11








            • 2





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






            • 4





              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00


















            26














            Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





            Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




            The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




            One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



            Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



            Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




            To copy 1.8GB




            Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



            Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




            I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.





            • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



            • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.




              • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

              • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.



            • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.





            To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



            Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows




            • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

            • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

            • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

            • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

            • How do the times compare?






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2





              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11








            • 2





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






            • 4





              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00
















            26












            26








            26







            Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





            Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




            The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




            One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



            Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



            Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




            To copy 1.8GB




            Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



            Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




            I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.





            • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



            • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.




              • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

              • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.



            • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.





            To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



            Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows




            • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

            • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

            • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

            • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

            • How do the times compare?






            share|improve this answer













            Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





            Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




            The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




            One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



            Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



            Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




            To copy 1.8GB




            Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



            Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




            I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.





            • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



            • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.




              • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

              • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.



            • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.





            To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



            Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows




            • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

            • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

            • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

            • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

            • How do the times compare?







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered May 31 '12 at 4:56









            ishish

            116k32270294




            116k32270294








            • 2





              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11








            • 2





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






            • 4





              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00
















            • 2





              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11








            • 2





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






            • 4





              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00










            2




            2





            cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

            – irrational John
            May 31 '12 at 16:11







            cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

            – irrational John
            May 31 '12 at 16:11






            2




            2





            This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

            – zrajm
            Feb 28 '14 at 17:48





            This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

            – zrajm
            Feb 28 '14 at 17:48




            4




            4





            @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

            – Pithikos
            Oct 20 '14 at 16:00







            @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

            – Pithikos
            Oct 20 '14 at 16:00















            7














            I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
            For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






            share|improve this answer




























              7














              I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
              For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






              share|improve this answer


























                7












                7








                7







                I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
                For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






                share|improve this answer













                I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
                For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jun 22 '13 at 17:13









                PeterPeter

                7111




                7111























                    6














                    Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
                    wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



                    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
                    says they fixed the bug.






                    share|improve this answer


























                    • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:03






                    • 3





                      @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                      – Marco Ceppi
                      May 31 '12 at 16:36











                    • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:54
















                    6














                    Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
                    wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



                    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
                    says they fixed the bug.






                    share|improve this answer


























                    • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:03






                    • 3





                      @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                      – Marco Ceppi
                      May 31 '12 at 16:36











                    • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:54














                    6












                    6








                    6







                    Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
                    wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



                    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
                    says they fixed the bug.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
                    wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



                    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
                    says they fixed the bug.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited May 23 '12 at 11:37









                    Marco Ceppi

                    37.2k24154192




                    37.2k24154192










                    answered May 4 '12 at 7:03









                    Dj RadioDj Radio

                    611




                    611













                    • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:03






                    • 3





                      @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                      – Marco Ceppi
                      May 31 '12 at 16:36











                    • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:54



















                    • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:03






                    • 3





                      @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                      – Marco Ceppi
                      May 31 '12 at 16:36











                    • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                      – irrational John
                      May 31 '12 at 16:54

















                    Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                    – irrational John
                    May 31 '12 at 16:03





                    Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                    – irrational John
                    May 31 '12 at 16:03




                    3




                    3





                    @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                    – Marco Ceppi
                    May 31 '12 at 16:36





                    @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                    – Marco Ceppi
                    May 31 '12 at 16:36













                    @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                    – irrational John
                    May 31 '12 at 16:54





                    @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                    – irrational John
                    May 31 '12 at 16:54











                    4














                    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                    In my case,



                    umount /media/usb0
                    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                    After that it is coping very fast.






                    share|improve this answer
























                    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                    • 17





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29











                    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01
















                    4














                    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                    In my case,



                    umount /media/usb0
                    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                    After that it is coping very fast.






                    share|improve this answer
























                    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                    • 17





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29











                    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01














                    4












                    4








                    4







                    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                    In my case,



                    umount /media/usb0
                    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                    After that it is coping very fast.






                    share|improve this answer













                    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                    In my case,



                    umount /media/usb0
                    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                    After that it is coping very fast.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 10 '14 at 17:13









                    msnfreakymsnfreaky

                    15915




                    15915













                    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                    • 17





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29











                    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01



















                    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                    • 17





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29











                    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01

















                    This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                    – Irfan
                    Jan 26 '16 at 10:52





                    This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                    – Irfan
                    Jan 26 '16 at 10:52




                    17




                    17





                    This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                    – LondonRob
                    May 17 '16 at 10:29





                    This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                    – LondonRob
                    May 17 '16 at 10:29













                    @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                    – sergzach
                    Jan 19 '18 at 10:01





                    @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                    – sergzach
                    Jan 19 '18 at 10:01











                    1














                    If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                    share|improve this answer






























                      1














                      If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        1












                        1








                        1







                        If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                        share|improve this answer















                        If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited May 31 '12 at 15:31









                        fossfreedom

                        150k37331374




                        150k37331374










                        answered May 26 '12 at 9:53









                        Ghost loggerGhost logger

                        193




                        193























                            1














                            When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                            If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                            share|improve this answer
























                            • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                              – Ben Lutgens
                              Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                            • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                              – A.Danischewski
                              Oct 28 '15 at 17:07













                            • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                              – Jenny O'Reilly
                              Sep 23 '17 at 12:38
















                            1














                            When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                            If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                            share|improve this answer
























                            • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                              – Ben Lutgens
                              Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                            • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                              – A.Danischewski
                              Oct 28 '15 at 17:07













                            • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                              – Jenny O'Reilly
                              Sep 23 '17 at 12:38














                            1












                            1








                            1







                            When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                            If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                            share|improve this answer













                            When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                            If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 23 '14 at 11:30









                            GarfieldElCatGarfieldElCat

                            111




                            111













                            • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                              – Ben Lutgens
                              Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                            • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                              – A.Danischewski
                              Oct 28 '15 at 17:07













                            • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                              – Jenny O'Reilly
                              Sep 23 '17 at 12:38



















                            • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                              – Ben Lutgens
                              Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                            • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                              – A.Danischewski
                              Oct 28 '15 at 17:07













                            • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                              – Jenny O'Reilly
                              Sep 23 '17 at 12:38

















                            The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                            – Ben Lutgens
                            Mar 24 '14 at 17:52





                            The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                            – Ben Lutgens
                            Mar 24 '14 at 17:52













                            @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                            – A.Danischewski
                            Oct 28 '15 at 17:07







                            @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                            – A.Danischewski
                            Oct 28 '15 at 17:07















                            When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                            – Jenny O'Reilly
                            Sep 23 '17 at 12:38





                            When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                            – Jenny O'Reilly
                            Sep 23 '17 at 12:38











                            0














                            I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                            share|improve this answer




























                              0














                              I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                              share|improve this answer


























                                0












                                0








                                0







                                I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                                share|improve this answer













                                I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered Nov 9 '15 at 10:36









                                anymamundyanymamundy

                                1




                                1























                                    -2














                                    I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                    cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                    cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                    I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                    share|improve this answer






























                                      -2














                                      I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                      cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                      cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                      I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                      share|improve this answer




























                                        -2












                                        -2








                                        -2







                                        I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                        I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                        share|improve this answer















                                        I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                        cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                        I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.







                                        share|improve this answer














                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer








                                        edited May 23 '17 at 14:45









                                        Zanna

                                        51.1k13138242




                                        51.1k13138242










                                        answered May 23 '17 at 13:03









                                        BartBart

                                        1




                                        1























                                            -3














                                            Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                            Hope this helped






                                            share|improve this answer




























                                              -3














                                              Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                              Hope this helped






                                              share|improve this answer


























                                                -3












                                                -3








                                                -3







                                                Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                Hope this helped






                                                share|improve this answer













                                                Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                Hope this helped







                                                share|improve this answer












                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer










                                                answered Dec 28 '17 at 20:57









                                                PerfectPerfect

                                                1




                                                1

















                                                    protected by Community Mar 17 at 7:19



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    數位音樂下載

                                                    When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

                                                    格利澤436b