The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Why is USB 3 so slow?

SuperSpeed it is not - yet

Cloud based data management

USB 3.0's SuperSpeed rating is a dismal joke if magazine tests are anything to go by, with transfers at a laggardly 127MB/sec at best, only three to four times faster than good USB 2 products. So why is USB 3.0 so slow?

In theory, USB 2.0 runs at a maximum of 480Mbit/s, whereas USB 3.0 runs up to 4.8Gbit/s: ten times faster. It's generally thought that the fastest deliverable real-world USB 3.0 speed, after allowing for protocol overhead, would be around 400MB/sec. The first magazine benchmarks, of a Buffalo HD-HXU3 and a pre-production Asus device, show that realised real-word transfer rates tend to be a whole lot slower than this. A mere third of it, in fact.

What is the problem?

Either the USB 3 interface is not being run well because the driver is inefficient, or the connected disk drive is simply too slow to fill the USB 3 pipe, or both.

Craig Reid is Buffalo's Product Manager for direct-attached storage in the UK. He points out that the USB controller is actually a complicated piece of kit. It's not a dedicated storage controller like eSATA. The USB controller has to handle up to 127 connected devices, coping with anything from keyboards and mice to printers and webcams, as well as external disk drive products.

That means incoming data traffic from storage devices has to wait while the controller goes through a few hoops before passing it on. Buffalo has a TurboUSB facility which effectively switches off or bypasses some controller complexity and reduces traffic latency through the controller.

Buffalo says its HD-HXU3 external USB 3.0 hard drive offers: "SuperSpeed transfer speeds of up to 130MB/s, 3 times faster than USB 2.0."

Reid is pleased with this 130MB/sec figure, partly because it's faster than eSATA, which, like SATA II, runs at 3Gbit/sec, and because it is a lot faster than USB 2.0 devices. But the HD-HXU3 product can't run at full USB 3.0 speed, Reid says, because: "A single external disk drive cannot saturate the USB 3.0 link."

The disk drive used in Buffalo's HD-HXU3 is a single 7200rpm SATA II drive, with a 3Gbit/s interface - about 40 per cent slower than USB 3.0's 4.8Gbit/s. Buffalo doesn't specify which disk supplier it uses as that can vary with HD-HXU3 capacity level and market conditions.

We know available 7200rpm, 2TB drives come from Hitachi GST and Western Digital. Hitachi GST has two SATA drives offering 2TB: the UltraStar A7K2000 and; the DeskStar 7K2000, both spinning at 7200rpm and using the SATA II 3Gbit/s interface.

Western Digital's 2TB RE4 also spins at 7200rpm and uses SATA II, ditto its 2TB Caviar Black drive. So both the HGST and WD drives can pump data in and out no faster than 3Gbit/s.

Actually Seagate has a 2TB Barracuda XT also spinning at 7200rpm but using the 6Gbit/s SATA interface (SATA III), which is 20 per cent faster than USB 3.0 and could saturate it. Reid said Buffalo does not use this drive, indicating that it is too expensive.

Buffalo will likely go with the 6Gbit/s SATA III interface drives when they are available on the commodity drive market.

Reid said that we need multi-drive storage devices to use USB 3.0 at nearer its maximum speed, suggesting a 4-drive DriveStation Quattro, if it supported USB 3.0, would be able to pump data much faster through it than a single drive product.

Currently, the DriveStation Quattro is a USB 2.0/eSATA device. It transfers data at up to 100MB/sec with that technology. This product looks a prime candidate for a USB 3.0 makeover. ®

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

120Mbyte/s device fails to saturate 400Mbyte/s interconnect

... shocker!

6
0

Not an intelligent article

What a stupid article, whinging that a SATA-II hard drive at 7200 rpm doesn't fully use the USB3 bandwidth. What's so shocking about that? If you put a Ford Fiesta on the Silverstone racetrack would you be shocked that it doesn't hit 200mph on the straights?

There is no way of saturating USB3 with a current domestic hard drive. Even a pair of 15,000 rpm SAS drives in RAID0 couldn't fill that much bandwidth. But if you have several USB3 hard drives attached then you would benefit from USB3 if they're all copying files simultaneously. Remember, USB3 is to satisfy computing for the next 6 years, so we won't see affordable devices capable of saturating it for a couple more years.

5
0

Apples and oranges

Why are you comparing observed maxima for USB 3 with theoretical maxima for USB 2? In fact why does this read more like an advert (or maybe an apology) for Buffalo than an article about USB speeds?

5
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
You don't need phone lines or cable for ANYTHING, says Dish
The satellite-dish man can sort you out with phone and broadband over the air too
 breaking news
What's HP got under wraps? Looks awfully flash and tape shaped
What happens in Vegas won't stay there - we've got the details
Microsoft borks botnet takedown in Citadel snafu
Stupid Redmond kicked over our honeypots, wail white hats
IBM's $1bn layoffs latest: Now axe swings in US, Canada - reports
Union claims 121 storage bods canned after dismal sales
AMD lifts the veil on Opteron, ARM chip plans for 2014
Hey Samsung, let's see your chippery handle 64GB of RAM
NetApp musters muscular cluster bluster for ONTAP busters
Storage array OS overhauled to juggle more nodes, go down on you, er, less
HP adds 'Haswell' Xeon E3s to entry ProLiant servers
Gussies up MicroServer for SMBs, adds baby switches