Slow usb drive

i've got a usb .0 drive that i'm tying to put a game onto so my friend doesn't have to download the whole thing again. it's very often transfering at sub 1mb/s speeds and i have no idea why. it starts off at ~20mb/s, then slows right down and stays where it's at. like i said, it's usb 30, I have write caching enabled on it, so is there any way for me to easily find the problem and fix it?

>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.
>Sup Forums is NOT your personal tech support team or personal consumer review site.

it might just be a substandard chip. they make them in their millions and test them - the ones that pass get sold. the one you have might have just barely passed, or it was packaged by assholes who don't care.

throw it out and buy a new one. it's faster than trying to diagnose chip-level faults.

damn, thanks. already googled the problem, nothing I found fixed it.

>32674 files

that might be the problem. It spends more time creating filesystem entries than copying file data.

zip that shit up.

yes. don't use a USB stick for this kind of thing. shit IOPS which will result in OP pic related when you deal with large number of files.

i'm in college, no money for new 128gig drives.

The fast part is your OS caching data it reads from the disk, reading to memory is pretty fast. The shit tier speeds you get afterwards is the pathetic state of your device.

Is it actually plugged into a USB 3 port? They usually have a color difference vs the USB 2 ports, although windows should give you warning about that. Also your device needs to be USB 3 compatible.

it's a usb 3.0 disk plugged into a usb 3.0 port.

welp

Are there any other processes accessing the source disk? Like a torrent client or something writing a few MiB/s of data to it while you copy?

very dissapointed in you guys.
>have you tried turning it off and on again?

I'm gonna give you answers, only because this isn't some retarded shill thread, or a hurrdurrr x is better than y; y btfo, bullshit.

What this guy said, is a factor.

What this guy said, about OS caching, is a factor.

Something to consider, is heat. As you transfer data to the chip in the flash drive, it heats up, which can cause degradation of performance.
There's the efficiency of your file system. Some file systems are simply faster than others. One thing which is of particular concern in FAT32 file systems is the cluster size.
Your flash drive may have a cache, which is blazing fast, but the actual storage is slow. You might be quickly filling the cache, then waiting on slower writes to the main storage. It's a common technique used by manufacturers to make cheap chips more appealing, since many file writing operations people do are for small amounts of data, so they think they've got a high speed chip, but it's a slow chip with a high speed internal cache.

But, everything considered, all things point to it simply being a cheap chip, with poor speed performance. It's super common among many brands, to use cheap chips. Some brands use different (outsourced) chips in otherwise identical products, and sell them at a lower price, in a different package. Patriot is a perfect example of that.

I doubt there's anything at all wrong with your flash drive. It most likely works exactly as intended. It's just a cheapo model. When you see a $12 64GB flash drive, you know they're cutting costs somewhere. If it's not in capacity, it's in performance.

What do you want dude? Your problem could be caused by a bunch of shit. Faulty device, bad drivers, bad filesystem, windows doing stupid shit like scanning the file you're writing to for malware, other processes doing dumb crap.

Investigate, have you tried on another OS like a linux live system? See if it works as expected, if it does it means it's a windows software problem, otherwise a hardware problem or a software problem in both windows and linux(highly unlikely).

Check event viewer, dmesg/journalctl.

>it's a usb 3.0 disk plugged into a usb 3.0 port.

>buys cheap ass """""usb 3.0"""" stick from chink
>believes it's usb 3
>it's not

>lol he believes the flash memory used in usb sticks is the same as in SSDs
usb sticks are slow because of the useless flash memory they put into them. no matter if usb 2 or 3. what you want to do in future is to use an external SSD. (I'd suggest a normal internal SSD with a USB3->SATA cable so you don't pay extra for an external model).

then get a job and stop playing video games you poorfag

damn, people think i cant tell usb 3.0 from usb 2.0 just from looking. people on Sup Forums really are jaded.
pic related is file transfer after compression. it's at a steady 70 mb/s now. thank you all.

Yeah, but unless you get the chink quadruple recycled flash it should be capable of more than 283 KB/s

did you even look at OP's pic?
oh wait, he's shitposting.

Could be the sheer number of files (over 32,000) also the file sizes. If it's a lot of smaller files, NTFS is not the most efficient file system for handling smaller file clusters. The other thing could just be the caching, as windows would load files from your disk to memory then from memory to the usb, so it may initially be fast. Usbs will probably have some form of cache like hdds do (depending on harddrive type it can be 32-64mbs of cache if not more) so its fast to read/write out of said cache but not much beyond it once it gets overwhelmed. Likewise SSDs are usually fast because they have anywhere from 512mb to 1-2gb of ddr2 onboard as their own cache subsystem. It will always be fast as caches usually have high r/w speeds compared to the main body of storage. Most USB drives are typically designed as well as generally storage more than anything, and not for speed at least unless you get one specifically designed for it. a $10 or $15 16gb drive isn't going to be amazingly fast.

1- 7zip
2- make it into one file, use tar (no compression, takes no extra time to compress/decompress, just makes it into one solid file)
3- enjoy max file transfer..

Number of files slows things down, because it has to write additional data for the filesystem. This is SLOW.

If after you make it into one large file (.tar) and it still is slow, the chip is bad.

/thread

why cant he just rar, zip, or use an archive first?this 1million times.
op, dont be a faggot, do this basic task

This thread has been the most useful and informative that I've seen for a long time in Sup Forums. Thanks.

Would making a .tar be a good idea also for stuff like moving around set of 2000 photos? Or is the data amount vs file number ratio too big?

tar sucks and is wasteful as all hell, there's so much useless padding and shit in a tar that it's very rarely used without compression.

Although if you're only trying to make a single file and copy it to a high speed device the time you spend on compressing a large file might be higher than transferring the tar as is.

What do you expect when you didn't know sequential read/write is much faster than random read/write

then buy a 8x USB hub and eight, cheap 16GB drives. you're in college, you should know how to count.

99% is the cables fault