I need some help with this

[dontasciime]

The only sharing is the amount of bandwidth each attached device can use on the controller.

 

 

 

 

Have you looked in the bios to make sure usb2 is on, incase you disabled it a while ago and forgot.

Edited August 10, 2006 by dontasciime

[dbminter]

You know? A disabling in the BIOS. Never thought of that. *I* wouldn't have, no. But, I'd not put it past the cosmic forces to have CHANGED it for me without my notice. I will check that right now, I think.

[dbminter]

What should I do with Sandra, though? i.e. what do I need to run, what values do you want back, etc.?

[dbminter]

The BIOS looks to be okay. Hi-Speed USB and Legacy USB are Enabled. USB 2.0 Legacy Support is set to Hi-Speed. Could the Legacy USB being enabled have crippled all USB, including the Hi-Speed 2.0 devices, to something slower?

 

 

Since I had nothing to better to do I went in and changed the Legacy USB setting, not thinking it would matter. It didn't. Still getting about 25 K.

 

 

Hmmm, I may be on to something. With Legacy USB disabled, BOTH USB drives were not visible in "DOS." So, this seems to indicate these drives are "legacy" USB, whatever that means, since when it is enabled, the drives are visible from a Windows ME bootable rescue diskette. Could that be why these drives are slow? That maybe they're in fact just USB 2.0 and not Hi-Speed? Which means, where do I go from here? What should I use/check for on one of these drives?

[dbminter]

Found the box that the newer drive came in. It says it is Hi-Speed USB 2.0. USB 2.0 transfer rate: 480 Mbits/s Rotational speed: 7200 RPM Memory cache: 2 MB or greater. BUT, can all/any of that be trusted?

 

 

Okay, just started digging around in Sandra. I think I see a little of what is going on here. Maybe. First, check out this return of the USB controllers:

 

 

CHRIST! Where the fuck can I store something that won't get resized so it can DAMN WELL BE SEEN?!

 

 

Anyway, in the meantime, I'll just text the results.

 

 

01.) USB Controller/Hub - Intel ® 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2

02.) USB Controller/Hub - Intel ® 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4

03.) USB Controller/Hub - " " - 24D7

 

04.) USB Controller/Hub - Intel ® 82801EB USB2 Enhanced Host Controller - 24DD ( Well, it DID say enhanced! )

 

05.) USB Controller/Hub - Intel ® 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24DE

 

06.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Root Hub

07.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Root Hub

08.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Root Hub

09.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Root Hub

10.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Root Hub

 

11.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Printing Support

 

12.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Mass Storage Device

13.) USB Controller/Hub - USB Mass Storage Device

 

14.) USB Controller/Hub - Generic USB Hub

 

 

There are 4 USB ports in the back and 2 USB ports on the front of the PC. I am starting to believe that the 4 in the back are USB 1.1 and the two in the front are USB 2.0. HOWEVER, the hardware is telling me this, BUT the HDD Tools read rates are the SAME regardless of which ports I'm using, front or back.

 

Notes: 11 - Serial/parallel, whatever the Hell they call it now, to USB convertor to connect the printer by USB since, at the time, I needed the printer port for something else. I no longer do and may, probably should, connect that back over its old connection.

 

12 and 13 are the two USB external HD's, of course.

 

14 - 1 General Electric USB 1.x hub with a whopping 1 device currently connected. (Too lazy to disconnect it because sometimes I need the Flash drive cable connected.)

[Jill]

db I hate to ask this and I know I'm going to be sorry once I have but here goes

 

do you actually call your pc sandra ?????????

 

and why ??????????

[cornholio7]

do you mean an image db?

if so imageshack

[dbminter]

Sandra is an acronym for something or other. A collection of tools that return all kinds of wonderful information on the PC, it seems.

 

 

An image, yes. Thanks!

 

 

GOD! The world is full of FUCKERS! Points to ImgShack for hosting without resizing... BUT, still gave a fucker error. With NO indication of what file types are allowed or not, it seems BMP is not allowed. BUT, they tell ME it's not allowed only AFTER I tried to send it and bitched at ME like I had transgressed some unwritten law! IDIOTS!

[dbminter]

Okay, trying images again.

 

 

 

Controller 3 and 4 have the exact same information as 1 and 2.

 

 

Now, take a look at Controller 5:

 

 

 

I think we're getting a handle on the problem. The back controllers DO seem to be USB 1.1 ONLY. So, connecting these drives in the back to reduce cable clutter from the front has apparently slowed down the usefulness of these drives for two years!

 

 

So, the USB 2.0 is only the front ports. Is that what others would agree with? How can I test those ports, specifically, to make sure? i.e. *I* know the front two ports are the front two ports, but, what does the COMPUTER think they are?

 

 

BUT, I am still confused, then, over why when connected to the front, the drives still only returned 27 k? Could it be because the other drive was always connected to the USB 1.1 ports at the time? Thus, the USB 2 port connected drive would only operate at the slowest speed because the other was? Just a guess. Looks like if I want to keep the front clear of cable clutter, I need to use that PCI card to get the USB 2 in the back.

 

 

Anyone else care to confirm, deny, or question what I've concluded? Because, believe me, even *I* need help!

[chewy]

power down the computer, disconnect all that crap(adapters, hubs whatever) and power back the computer, all your ports are

usb2. now test and find out if it's cables, devices or your computer.

[chewy]

delete server hiccup

Edited August 11, 2006 by chewy

[chewy]

power down the computer, disconnect all that crap(adapters, hubs whatever) and power back the computer, all your ports are

usb2. now test and find out if it's cables, devices or your computer.

 

there's only so much power you can draw off the motherboard,

eliminate that

[cornholio7]

replies in triplicate please

[dbminter]

Replies, please, on the back of a post card to Blue Peter!

[cornholio7]

get down shep

[dbminter]

Okay, rebooted, disconnected all USB devices, and logged in. Reran Sandra and got the same results. So, it does appear that the four ports in the back are USB 1.1 and the two in the front are USB 2.0. Thus, I have been wasting a lot of potential, it seems. However, the front port HDD Tools test result still irks me. So, time to run it again!

 

 

Well, the good news is that with only that drive connected to the front port, turning it off after it was detected and turning it back on did NOT return that previous message about the Hi-Speed device connected to a slow speed port. So, that seems to be good news. That with the other drive connected to a USB 1.1 port, it might have been the reason why the front port returned that value? That the front port took on the slowest available speed? I know some devices do that, like IDE in various chains, etc.

 

 

CHRIST! Unfortunately, I'm STILL only getting about 27 to 31k on the HDD Tools I/O Rate! Even with ONLY that one drive connected AND connected to the front USB ports! Tested both ports!

 

 

Okay, so, what do I do from here? I'm supposed to be getting larger than 27 k?

 

 

Sandra is returning results these results, but, I'm not sure they correspond with HDD Tools. I ran a benchmark under Benchmarks --> Physical Disks --> and selected the USB drive. The first item returned in the list of results:

 

Benchmark Results

Drive Index: 30 MB/s

 

 

Is this the value you were looking for, Shamus? Lightning, were you saying that HDD Tool's I/O Rate should be greater than 1 MB/s then to correspond with USB 2.0 Hi-Speed?

[Shamus_McFartfinger]

Tried removing/uninstalling the controllers and rebooting?

[dbminter]

Now, this makes NO sense at all... I expected when I connected the drive to the back USB ports and turned the drive off and then back on, to get the Hi-Speed device connected to a low speed port. WRONG! Got NOTHING this time! SHEESH!

 

 

Still getting 27 Kbs/sec I/O Rate in HHDT and and 30 Mbs/s benchmark in Sandra that way...

 

 

Shamus, okay, going to try deleting the channels and rebooting. Want to be that's gonna do a damn?

 

 

BTW, was that Benchmark value the one you were looking for?

[dbminter]

Shamus

 

 

Okay, deleted all entries under USB controllers, rebooted, let Windows reinstall them, rebooted, turned on the drive connected to the front, let it be detected and installed, rebooted again, rebooted again and then ran HDDT and Shandra. Same results.

[kevdriver]

Hey db, been following this problem of yours up to now and just want to suggest maybe getting the CD for your motherboard out and under Driver Menu look for a USB2 driver and try reloading it, if it exsists. Your probabley already tryed this but just thought I'd mention it....................

[Shamus_McFartfinger]

Shamus

 

 

Okay, deleted all entries under USB controllers, rebooted, let Windows reinstall them, rebooted, turned on the drive connected to the front, let it be detected and installed, rebooted again, rebooted again and then ran HDDT and Shandra. Same results.

How about doing some elimination? Have you tried this drive in another PC? At least then you'll have a better idea on where the problem is.

[chewy]

take a 4 gig video file and transfer, 4000MB/ xxxseconds

 

30MB/s is too fast(that's a burst)

[dbminter]

I don't think I have such a CD. This image was loaded directly from the factory default partition backup image I made before even loading Windows XP SP 1 2002 Version for the first time. The only drivers included outside of an XP disc were some RAID drivers and other updates not relative to my particular setup for this model. So, such an update would already be "loaded."

 

 

Well, in the meantime, while others think over my posts and reply eventually...? I think I'll just pop open the case and insert the Belkin USB 2.0 PCI card from 2002 and see what I get from there. I'll be using the cable that came with the drive, so, the cable type shouldn't matter.

 

 

According to this one link http://www.everythingusb.com/usb2/faq.htm it says that if Sandra returns anything over 12Mbps it is Hi-Speed. BUT, OF COURSE, THEY'RE INCONSISTENT! They don't say UNDER WHAT Sandra should return this value. And, because I'm not sure WHERE to look, I'm NOT entirely sure I'm looking at the right data! Because NOTHING thus far has been in Mbps but in MB/s! BECAUSE a megabit per second is NOT the same as a megabyte per second! SHEESH! CONSISTENCY, PEOPLE!

 

 

Speaking of which... according to Wikipedia... 12 Mbps is FULL SPEED! NOT HI-SPEED! That should be 480 (Mbps/Mbits)/sec! WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THESE PEOPLE!? Which damn value is it?!

 

 

You know what? I'm just going to ask Lightning. You say that anything greater than 1Mb/sec I/O Rate in HDD Tools is Hi-Speed, correct?

[dbminter]

How about doing some elimination? Have you tried this drive in another PC? At least then you'll have a better idea on where the problem is.

 

 

No real way I have to test it on another PC other than to set up the parts of another one, A COMPAQ! :& in place of the one here. And, we ALL know that I'll just waste my time doing that because the same thing is going to happen.

[dbminter]

take a 4 gig video file and transfer, 4000MB/ xxxseconds

 

30MB/s is too fast(that's a burst)

 

 

What would I use to gauge the transfer rate? The only thing I know is that it would have taken 50 minutes to copy a 4 GB file from the USB drive to the SATA drive in the test I ran a few days ago.

 

 

As for the 30 MB/s, I am not even CERTAIN that is the value I'm looking for! Once someone can confirm that is the benchmark result I can be sure.

 

 

For instance, is this the benchmark value I should be looking for in Sandra? It's the one I've been using: