Actually 16-20 sounds about right from what I have seen. There is actually a lot of CPU work for USB (that's why intel pushes it) In my informal testing, FireWire has faster transfers and lower CPU when you use a decent FireWire card. Don't be fooled by the 480 vs. 400 numbers, a lot of it's taken up by overhead. -----Original Message----- From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Florin Iucha Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:04 PM To: Leif Johnson; TCLUG Mailing List Subject: Re: [TCLUG] USB hard drives On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Leif Johnson wrote: > I wouldn't expect the same latency or transfer rate from a USB drive > as an IDE one. I haven't actually done the math, but I don't think > that the bus can support it. USB 2.0 "480 MBs". I would expect a sustained throughput of 35-40 MB or so, without much CPU usage. I get around 16-20 and the CPU is working hard (it's a PII/450). > Your latency and throughput will also > depend on what other devices you have plugged into that controller, > and the host/os implementation. Nothing. Linux. 2.6.7. > What filesystem is on the hard drive? ext2 florin -- Don't question authority: they don't know either! _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota Help beta test TCLUG's potential new home: http://plone.mn-linux.org Got pictures for TCLUG? Beta test http://plone.mn-linux.org/gallery tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list