speed difference USB 2.0 vs 3.0?

What works, and doesn't, for you. Be specific, and please include Puppy version.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mikeschn
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri 27 Jul 2012, 15:04

speed difference USB 2.0 vs 3.0?

#1 Post by mikeschn »

For those of you guys running Puppy on a USB stick, is there a big difference when booting/saving between a USB2.0 and USB3.0?

and if you happen to know, how does the speed of the CD compare to the USB?

Thanks

User avatar
ravensrest
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri 22 Feb 2008, 16:43
Location: Grants Pass, Oregon

#2 Post by ravensrest »

Don't know how much faster USB3 is than USB2, but I boot using USB2 from a 16Gig stick and it is significantly faster than CD.
BS

linuxbear
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009, 20:39
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Re: speed difference USB 2.0 vs 3.0?

#3 Post by linuxbear »

mikeschn wrote:For those of you guys running Puppy on a USB stick, is there a big difference when booting/saving between a USB2.0 and USB3.0?

and if you happen to know, how does the speed of the CD compare to the USB?

Thanks
Yes

http://www.itworld.com/hardware/98798/u ... pe-reality

User avatar
mikeschn
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri 27 Jul 2012, 15:04

#4 Post by mikeschn »

Cool! Thanks guys. So I guess there's no need to run out and buy a machine that has USB3.0 :roll: :lol:

Mike...

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#5 Post by sunburnt »

CD is pretty slow by comparison these days, but DVD is much faster.
And BlueRay I don`t have a drive yet. They`re even faster I`m sure.

The USB3 spec. is much faster than USB2, but the device is the speed limit.
I`ve had USB2 flash drives that were not much faster than USB1.1

It`s like the SATA interface, they keep making it faster and faster.
But 3.5 inch H.D.s are still the same speed ( approximately 60 MBs ).
S.S.D.s are able to make use of SATA`s blazing interface speeds.

User avatar
dk60902
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2010, 22:34
Location: In front of my computer

#6 Post by dk60902 »

Slacko, Lucid, and Saluki are 130 MB or less, savefile 512 MB for me, which means my computer needs to load ~650 MB into RAM, as I do frugal installs. USB 2.0 is up to 480 mb/sec and USB 3.0 is up to 5.0 GB/sec. Does that mean that USB 2.0 will load 650 1.5 secs into RAM, and USB 3.0 will load in ~ 0.13 sec into RAM, assuming maximum speeds? For a small distro like Puppy, is going to USB 3.0 really going to make a significant difference? Has someone installed the same Puppy on a USB 2.0 stick and USB 3.0 stick and booted from the same computer (obviously plugging the 2.0 stick into a 2.0 port and the 3.0 into a 3.0 port)? What has been your experience?

I just bought a couple USB 3.0 sticks, and I might buy a USB 3.0 PCI card to upgrade my system.

I had a couple computers that I sold recently that had Puppy frugally installed (slacko and lucid), and it loaded much more quickly than with a CD. The savefile was saved on the HD for both the HD and CD boot. I also booted from USB 2.0, and it was significantly faster than CD. However, saving the savefile to USB seemed fairly slow on my system.
HP Pavilion Mini Pentium 1.7 GHz Dual Core 12 GB RAM 120 GB SSD Linux Lite 3.8 64-bit w/ Kensington Slimblade Trackball
Bionic8.0 Xenial64 Tahr64 USB frugal install
Samsung Chromebook Plus
LG V20 LG Xpression Plus Huawei Ascend XT2

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#7 Post by sunburnt »

The save file is the biggest file in Puppy, so slow to save of course.

I`m trying to setup a transparently compressed Save file for Puppy.
It`d run and save/restore faster, and take less ram and USB space.

e2compr is light and simple and probably a good choice.

Btrfs is the new Ext4 replacement, and does on-the-fly compression.
It will be the next main stream Linux FS very soon, a good choice too.

Both require compiling a new kernel and some of the FS tools.

Post Reply