My SSD Only Supports 500MB's Read and 175 MB's Write!


Recommended Posts

You guy's gave me he** for using my 128 GB M4 SSD Externally. Well I just wanted to let you guys know that my SSD only support's 500 MB's a Second Read and 175 MB's a Second Write! It is indeed designed to be used Externally, NOT Internally as USB 2.0 Supports 480 MB's a Second! Just FYI!

actually USB2 supports 480Mb not MB (which is 35MB per second) ;) USB3 isn't bad at 5Gbits or 625 MB a second

An SSD on USB 2? Err... wha...

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

It is indeed designed to be used Externally, NOT Internally as USB 2.0 Supports 480 MB's a Second! Just FYI!

No.

"USB 2.0: Released in April 2000. Added higher maximum signaling rate of 480 Mbit/s (effective throughput up to 35 MB/s or 280 MBit/s)"

actually USB2 supports 480Mb not MB (which is 35MB per second) ;) USB3 isn't bad at 5Gbits or 625 MB a second

Some SSD's had USB ports on them... gawd knows why they thought this was a good idea, but some had them...

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

If you ever figure out their reasoning let me know *lol* I always thought why?... only thing I could think was for easy mirroring of a hard drive to the SSD via USB but that's still a dumb idea if you understand the difference between storage on SSD and HDD's like 512 vs 4k sectors and how mirroring one to the other is kinda an ehh idea to do..

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

ah, didn't look up that specific drive, was just going by past experience with ssd's sometimes having mini usb ports

An M4 would be a "bare" drive.

I've reread the OP's post about 10 times and still can't real decipher it. :s

He got an internal SSD with a USB cable, thought it was external (I guess because SSDs look like they come in a case compared to a spinny drive), plugged it in via USB 2, apparently thinks it's now running at nearly full speed. :laugh:

I assume it's just sitting on his desk too, which I suppose isn't the worst with an SSD, but it just adds to the ridiculousness.

If you ever figure out their reasoning let me know *lol* I always thought why?... only thing I could think was for easy mirroring of a hard drive to the SSD via USB but that's still a dumb idea if you understand the difference between storage on SSD and HDD's like 512 vs 4k sectors and how mirroring one to the other is kinda an ehh idea to do..

They're cheaper than a flash drive, and slightly more durable than a portable disk drive. I guess there's that. Makes more sense if you have USB 3.0 anyway.

and once again kevpan, you didn't listen to us, only yelled at everyone that was trying to correct you

the ssd you got IS an internal drive. the cord is only for you to easily clone your old internal over to the new drive before putting the new one in

we even linked you to some instructions on how to easily do it all but you chose to ignore us and just attack everyone trying to help you

He got an internal SSD with a USB cable, thought it was external (I guess because SSDs look like they come in a case compared to a spinny drive), plugged it in via USB 2, apparently thinks it's now running at nearly full speed. :laugh:

I assume it's just sitting on his desk too, which I suppose isn't the worst with an SSD, but it just adds to the ridiculousness.

Interesting. If that's the case, there is NO way that he would be getting anywhere near the 500MB/s that he stated. Even 50MB/s would be stretch. :rofl:

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

I can only guesstimate that it would have been for a drive recovery scenario where you were temporarily connecting it to access some of the data. But I concur that makes no sense...

To actually place an SSD on USB 2 as an external primarily is grossly a waste of money. Even the slowest HDD would handle that scenario just fine.

Yup. I personally use a hybrid drive externally. But i use it on eSata as using it on USB 2 would make no sense at all.

Folks, he has admitted on his own that he has mental problems. Feeding into it only makes it worse for him and everyone else.

Sometimes he literally cannot help the fact that he won't listen and gets agitated.

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

Kevin, this is a case where you are wrong. Don't make things worse on yourself by arguing with people who know what they are talking about.

You and I have had this type of discussion many times over the last several years.

Walk away and do the proper research when you're well, not when you're sick and cannot judge things well, ok?

WRONG! IT IS GETTING ALMOST FULL SPEED AS IT IS GETTING 480 MB'S A SECOND OUT OFF 500 MB'S A SECOND!

I EVEN PLAYED STAR TREK D-A-C (FROM THE MAC APP STORE) YESTERDAY AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER!

Are you sure you aren't using E-Sata?

USB 2.0 support 480 Mbps which as others have observed is 35MBps. Even if the drive supports 550MBps (which it probably does by SATA3) the USB 2.0 interface will slow it down to 35 :\

USB 3.0 could give you those kinds of speeds, but not USB 2.0

Folks, he has admitted on his own that he has mental problems. Feeding into it only makes it worse for him and everyone else.

Sometimes he literally cannot help the fact that he won't listen and gets agitated.

Kevin, this is a case where you are wrong. Don't make things worse on yourself by arguing with people who know what they are talking about.

You and I have had this type of discussion many times over the last several years.

Walk away and do the proper research when you're well, not when you're sick and cannot judge things well, ok?

bipolar ?

If that's the case yeah better leave him alone.

He's never specified the exact issue. If it is BP it is far beyond what I experience...which is already a pain. :p

I played wow with a bipolar guy for a year. It was a hell of a roller coaster ride lol ;) he was a nice guy tough.

which USB connection are you using exactly? USB1, 1.1, 2, or 3 and does the USB to SATA bridge even support what you are using?

how about you answer the question, which USB spec are you running against? USB 1, 1.1, 2 or 3?

and post a picture of a hard drive benchmark test like Crystal DiskMark or HDTac or something similar

it's the 2010 mac mini, so if he's using usb it'd be 2.0

edit: more specifically this is the SSD that he got that he claims is external because it came with a cord http://www.crucial.com/store/mpartspecs.aspx?mtbpoid=78D9B390A5CA7304

USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps (mega bit). Your SSD is 500 MBps (mega byte).

So in fact USB 2.0 is 60 MBps, and once you take the protocol and overhead into account it's closer to 30 MBps.

But you seem pretty adamant on not believing what people say so, whatever.

it's the 2010 mac mini, so if he's using usb it'd be 2.0

edit: more specifically this is the SSD that he got that he claims is external because it came with a cord http://www.crucial.c...8D9B390A5CA7304

Thanks for the article now it is easy to see what he is getting at, albeit it would appear that he is using the transfer kit for using the SSD as an external drive. . .some peoples kids.

USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps (mega bit). Your SSD is 500 MBps (mega byte).

So in fact USB 2.0 is 60 MBps, and once you take the protocol and overhead into account it's closer to 30 MBps.

But you seem pretty adamant on not believing what people say so, whatever.

yeah, just so people know 500 MBps = 4000 Mbps

USB2 maxes out at 480Mbps that's 8.3333 times slower then the SSD's max speed

now if this was running under USB3, yeah you'd get good speed, but USB2 why even have a SSD you are going slower then your mechanical HDD

yeah it comes with a cord

The Data Transfer Kit makes it simple to copy everything on your hard drive, including operating system, data, email settings and applications, to your Crucial m4. The kit includes the EZ Gig III Cloning and Imaging Software for Windows?, ShirtPocket's SuperDuper! for Mac?, a USB to SATA cable and a Quick Start Guide. Upgrade your notebook drive in just three simple steps.

Not sure why you can not believe the USB 2 spec.

http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

http://www.usb.org/d...rs/usb20/faq20/

1: What maximum speed was finally chosen for the USB 2.0 spec?

A: The USB 2.0 specification has a design data rate of 480 mega bits per second.

This is just fact, if you don't believe it - then download the spec for yourself - I listed the url for it.

yeah, just so people know 500 MBps = 4000 Mbps

USB2 maxes out at 480Mbps that's 8.3333 times slower then the SSD's max speed

now if this was running under USB3, yeah you'd get good speed, but USB2 why even have a SSD you are going slower then your mechanical HDD

Also USB is 480Mbps BURST transfer. it's the highst USB2 will go in a single burst, but it doesn't transfer at that speed constantly, hence why it's called burst.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I'm not unblocking my camera for this crapola. Sorry, Google.
    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      258
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!