Hardware :: External HDD Write Speeds Slower Than Windows?
Sep 30, 2010
When I copy files to my External NTFS HDD using Ubuntu the write speeds are about 10-12 MB/sec, but when I copy files using Windows the write speeds are about 25-30 MB/sec.
Exact same files, tried all three ports on my netbook and even timed it to see if the speeds are by any chance miscalculated by either operating system and Ubuntu is definitely writing at half the speed.
So what could be the problem? When I had Windows on this Netbook I never got had a problem with write speeds so I don't think it is a hardware issue.
I'm trying to back up my hard drive to a 2 TB WD external so that I can do a clean install of 10.10, however I'm getting tremendously slow write speeds. It hovers around 1.5 MB/s and steadily slows from there. It tells me it will take 150+ hours to transfer 400 GB of data.
I have a AMD quad core processor and 8 gigs of ddr3 ram... USB 2.0... I feel this should go much faster.
I am getting extremely poor write speeds with my RAID. My setup is as follows: > HP Proliant Microserver > 4 2TB Samsung F4 drives > 60GB root drive > Ubuntu 10.10 64bit > mdadm 3.2.2. I have two of the above servers, connected via gigabit LAN. The read speeds I am happy with, but write speeds are running at about 20Mb/s at the very best, Especially when people with a similar setup on a machine like this are running at about 90MB/s write speeds. My array is as follows (mdadm --detail -D /dev/md0):
I have also started the partitions at 64 instead of 63 in a bid to correctly align the partitions, although this doesn't seem to have made any difference.
Linux beginner, first project is a NAS based on Debian Lenny. Have SMB and AFP running. Hooked to a gigabit network. 8 disk RAID6 with mdadm. Need the NAS to back up our production company's video files.First attempt at back up was very, very slow on smb and afp. Used a Mac disk benchmark app, shows 100+MBps reads, but only .4MBps (as in 400kbps!) writes. Went through office LAN, and also tried just cabling the two machines (MacPro and Debian NAS) directly. Same results. Not sure what the write speeds are internally, as I don't know of any Linux/Debian disk testing software.
I have a 4 drive RAID 5 array set up using mdadm. The system is stored on a seperate physical disk outside of the array. When reading from the array its fast but when writing to the array its extremely slow, down to 20MB/Sec compared to 125MB/Sec reading. It does a bit then pauses, then writes a bit more and then pauses again and so on.The test i did was to copy a 5GB file from the RAID to another spare non-raid disk on the system average speed 126MB/s. Copying it back on to the RAID (in another folder) the speed was 20MB/s.The other thing is very slow several KB/s write speed copying from eSATA drive to the RAID.
I just bought a 1Tb hdd and reformatted to FAT32 it is connected via eSATA to SATA cable.At first I transfered music that initially was getting speeds over 100mb/s (according to nautilus) after about a minute it started to dwindle. Now most files will range somewhere between 8-20mb/s although I've only seen a couple go beyond.i edited hdparm.conf to enable DMAHere is the output of hdparm -Tt for both internal(sda) and external(sdb) hardrives.
Code: /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 14872 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7444.68 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 372 MB in 3.00 seconds = 123.91 MB/sec[code]....
What is the issue this output leads me to believe that I should be getting the same speed I once got.I'm running Intel Core 2 duo at 3.00, ASUS P5Q (enabled AHCI) and 4gb ram 12gb linux swap. Also Karmic 9.10
It used to have a lightening speed. But now every application is taking few seconds to start, even on Konsole, the commands take some seconds to get typed ! (I literally have to wait for cursor to move and commands to get typed on Konsole). Folders are taking some seconds to get opened !
I rebooted the computer but that proved to be useless.
Here the ps output:
Code: anisha@linux-uitj:~> pstree -Apuh `id -anisha` id: invalid option -- 'i' Try `id --help' for more information. init(1)-+-acpid(1054)
Since I use my computer for some intense processor calculations, without any fancy graphical needs, I decided to apply a mild OC on the BIOS settings, to speed thing a bit up.I own an AMD Phenom II 1055T (2.8GHz) cpu. I changed the base freq from 200 to 203, and changed the multipliers of the standard and boost freqs to x15 and x16.5, so now the BIOS reads 3045 MHz and 3349 MHz for both speeds.
I've installed Ubuntu Maverick on a testing machine, a Samsung N510 (Atom N280/2 GB RAM), and I've been quite surprised that I haven't been able, due to slowness, to reproduce MPEG2/DIVX videos (using VLC).When I subsequently installed Windows XP, the videos were playing fluidly.Now, I also noticed, although this may potentially be biased, that the overall responsiveness of the system is a bit slower than when I use Windows XP (drawing speed of objects).I remember having the same feeling I switched (years ago) entirely from Windows to Ubuntu.
Why is video decoding so much slower on Ubuntu?Providing that the second point (desktop system speed) is not biased, is gnome inherently slower than Windows XP's GUI? Why, if so?
I'm posting this here because I have no idea how to address this issue. I have an Ubuntu 11.04 with Windows XP on VirtualBox, Firefox 5 on both machines (virtual and real).I thought my connection was slow when I realized that the browser in VB was much faster than the one in Ubuntu.The problem doesn't seem to be on firefox because Chrome also is slow (I haven't checked Chrome in XP-VB).When I type an address in Firefox Ubuntu it takes a long time to show the page and sometimes the whole browser gets stuck for somewhere around a minute.
I recently switched my mom from Windows to Fedora , and ever since her Internet speed went down. Now it takes, on average, 6-8 seconds longer for her to load a web page with Firefox. Tried to replace the modem -- didn't help. She is on a DSL connection.
But here is the striking part. Her BitTorrent speeds are better than mine, and I have a cable rather than DSL.
I can't for life imagine how these two can coexist. An innocent web page takes forever to load, and torrents are so fast. By the way, she does say that torrents used to be *even* faster on Windows.
The same network environment, no matter which browser I use, my fedora 13 always works slower than windows XP on loading web pages. Others are better than windows -- like memory management...(I directly feel that). applications running more smoothly than those in windows xp.
I want to know how could I make it faster on loading web pages.
For some reason on these days i've noticed that my internet speed seems to go faster when i'm on my windows partition (shame on me i know xD) when i go back to my linux pages take too much time to load, which doesn't happen in windows, i have never had this problem before/
I have a big archive with about 10000 documents in a usb stick. What I have noticed is that browsing of that archive with gnome is much slower with ubuntu than winXP ( dual boot , same PC ) where it is almost instant.I have disabled assistive technologies and installed Thunar file browser. It improved things but again the lag is important. Linux is in general much faster than windows, so I wonder why is it happening ?
"Dell 1525 WLAN PCIe card with11n mini-Card & external antenna" wireless card. It got recognized fine by FC12, but it was rather slow. I had read that life would be better in FC13 with the new kernel. After a long wait, I upgraded to FC13 yesterday.
It seems that the wireless is indeed faster. However, it it clearly a lot slower than under Windows 7 (it is a dual boot PC). My test is simply to play say Hulu in full screen: under Windows it looks fine, under FC13 it plays in slow motion.
I'm using openSUSE 11.2 64bit in Dell E6400 with Intel video chipset. I can play x264 720p files without any problems in Windows 7, but in openSUSE, I could play it in Totem, but it is very slow (lots of stopping).
In addition, in songbird, if I use the mediaflow add-on,the scroll becomes really sluggish.
In general, I feel like openSUSE is showing less ram usage but higher CPU usage than Windows 7. Is my video card driver is messed up? I really like openSUSE a lot but so it is disappointing....
I have a 2-year old DELL XPS M1330. I used to have Windows Vista on it, but over time, I believe it became clogged with too many programs and so I wiped the hard drive and installed ubuntu 10.04 LTS about 2 weeks ago. However, ubuntu many times seems to run slower than vista did. I have 4 GB of RAM, an Intel Core 2 Duo T8100 (2.1 GHz, 3MB Cache, 800MHz FSB), 320GB HDD, 128MB nVIDIA GeForce 8400M. Ubuntu recognizes me as having dual processors at 2.1 GHz and 3.4GB RAM, but when I'm watching a simple video, whether online or locally on the computer, my CPU usage invariably jumps to 100% and it lags. Sometimes, even simple word processing makes it slow significantly.
Debian lenny, old install (I've upgraded to lenny when it was just about to become the stable release), versus windows 7, fresh install.Comparing browsers speeds with numion.com/Stopwatch.html, I had results such as:Iceweasel (firefox) on linux: from 9.154 seconds to 21:860 seconds (the same webpage, reloaded)Firefox on windows: 4.32 seconds - and never much slower than thatThe fastest browser on linux was Opera, ranging from 8.562 to 5.503 secs to load the same page, but even internet explorer beat/match it with its timing of about five seconds.
I have not other browsers on windows; on linux there is aroraonqueror (KDE3), kazehakase, chrome, and dillo, besides text browsers. I didn't test on dillo; Kazehakase and chrome were the only ones which had nearly decent results, but still very bad, 11 to 13 seconds for chrome, and 21 for kazehakase. Konqueror just seemed to never finish to load the page, I gave up when it was still loading somethingfter nutes and 5 seconds.'ve emptied the cache every time I would test, and I was running almost only the browsers and not much else. Whatever comes by default on windows, and on linux, I was on openbox, with nothing much going on I guess, I think the most memory consuming processthe time, besides xorg and the browsers themselves, was dictd.
I've researched a little bit about, but not enough to make a list of possible things to change in order to improve the speed on linux. Most of the time there are people just agreeing that on windows the rendering is faster, and other people saying that with them is the opposite, with some minor variations like people saying that linux is faster for plain downloads while windows is faster for web browsing due to better graphics.
(by the way; I haven't installed any graphic card driver on windows, which is still running on 1024x768, while linux runs on 1280x1024, with the "nv" generic driver, without fancy options, not supported by my old card) The closest to a suggestion of possible solutions was someone saying tha compilation may affect performance, I guess it was both about kernel compilation, and the web browsers themselves.I'll google a bit more about how to "compile for speed", both kernels and programs (maybe the x server
Im experiencing a strange problem with 10.04. When it first boots up its reasonably quick (as snappy as Gnome ever has been) but after its been running for a day or two it gets ununsably slow and has to be rebooted.
I dont see how it can be anything to do with my hardware as it runs OK when first started. Ive monitored RAM usage and it doesnt seem to differ much. There's always the same amount unused.
Just read a post on this page (scroll down about half way) and it seems like all mozilla based browsers are still slower in linux vs wine and/or windows! [URL]...I thought after almost two years this would've been fixed (there's been earlier reports besides the link I gave above). Heck I thought it would be a problem with a specific version release and/or releases? I think this is a bit ridiculous after this long and I'm almost wondering if it's been around longer than 2 years when anyone even cared to take notice! Oh and did I already mention that compiling it doesn't make a difference? You probly knew that already. I'm running bleeding edge Gentoo with window maker (march=prescott sse sse2 sse3 mmx mmxext blah use flags and cflags) and Slackware 13.1 (alot of stuff compiled and/or recompiled from source-optimized with same flags as gentoo and even more flags (and less package features) when things are stable and ok. Yes compiling is pain on a overclocked Celeron D lol. Well not too painful
Thanks to google-chromium and/or chrome we don't have to worry about speed issues but come-on this is almost sick! Firefox windows via wine way faster than a native linux build? WTF... That's like almost embarrassing. Has anyone found anything to resolve this issue. Perhaps it's a simple yet overlooked setting that no one bothers with?
To that link above one of the posters mentioned it's the DNS cache setting that fixes the speed issue, but then others posted back saying it doesn't resolve this issue so obviously that's not the case. There's definately a flaw with the mozilla code under linux since even epiphany (which is very lightweight in comparison to regular firefox) suffers performance issues as well as others.
It's a bit upsetting I.M.O. (in my opinion! lolz) that this issue isn't resolved yet after all this time? I mean common. What about people who have no choice but to use Firefox. I have to use firefox by force when I play QuakeLive! (the plugin is not made for any other linux browser).
Even besides that point. Mozilla was made in the first place to be light weight, fast and secure vs internet explorer. It has severely changed since then (remember when it was the only tabbed browser available? It was sweet back then!). Now it just seems bloated and awful. Thankfully not terribly awful on Windows but compared to Google-Chrome (especially Safari which is MacOS only but still) it gets smoked in terms of speed, memory use and simplicity. At least not as bad as Internet Explorer (lol @ internet explorer. OMG the slowzyynessz and heeuuchggeneesszz).
So yeah being an open source browser and running terribly on an open source O.S. vs a closed source one. What's gonna' happen? Has this already been mentioned and fixed somewhere that I never looked or is it completely hopeless and just better not to use it for those of us that are bothered by it.
I just installed a dual boot XP/Debian 5.0.4 setup on my Dell 5100 laptop. I now have constant problems with "resolving host" when using Debian. The connection when using a browser or downloading is noticeably slower than when using Windows or my Ubuntu install on my desktop. Also, whenever using the Debian install on my laptop, both it and my desktop, which both connect through the same Linksys router, constantly show "resolving host" (Chrome browser) until it just timeouts. Rebooting the DSL modem sometimes fixes it for a while (although it's still slow even then), but it eventually happens again. Turn off the laptop/switch to the XP OS on it, and the problems disappear on both the laptop and desktop. Is this a known problem for Debian 5.0.4?
I installed Ubuntu on external USB hard drive and while booting I did got option to log into windows XP, Ubuntu. Both operating systems ran fine. i.e. GRUB had overwritten MBR and I was able to dual boot. Main issue: I have installed Ubuntu in external hard-drive so that I can use Linux whenever I want other people who are using same computer can operate on WindowsXP. Sometimes my external hard drive gives problem if there is loose connection and so that oper people using computer do not face any problem I want to disconnect external USB HD whenever I am not using Linux. GRUB menu was pointing to external hardrive so disconnecting it meant my system wont boot!!I rewrote MBR using WindowsXP CD recovery mode. Now I am unable to boot from external USB hard disk( I thought I would be able to if I choose USB hard drive in BIOS option but it did not work it logged into WindowsXP by default).Is there any way I can change WindowsXP boot.ini file so that it also shows Ubuntu in external hard disk? Or is there any way.(I do not want GRUB way as then I would have to keep my external drive connected to log into windows - which I do not want).
I switched a external 500GB usb HD from FAT to ext4, because the box it's on no longer has windows.It mounts fine and I can read it - but not write.I have some inkling as to what to do, but prefer your opinions first.
I have shared two external harddrives via samba on ubuntu, but only I can access it. The reason being is because I have logged into linux, and become the owner of the external hdd's. On the permission properties, I can see that the group I have created every other user under has "No Folder Access", and if I change this it reverts back instantly. So frustrating, I've tried to chmod it which hasn't done a thing. The owner of the external hdd's seems to be the only person who can access it over samba.Is there anyway I can get normal users to just read and write to external hdd's?
I have an external hard drive connected via usb cable - /media/New Volume - and mounted in Ubuntu 10.04. How can I "write zeros" to this drive or maybe write random characters in an effort to wipe data on this disk?
I'm trying to backup netbook files to an external optical drive. I can read discs but not write. A while back I tried using K3b but it did not see the external drive. Now it does, but tells me write access is needed and quits. I am in the cdrom group.
I have an Iomega External Hard Drive 1TB. Problem: Unable to write to Ext3 Partition. How I got here: Started off with going into windows and shrinking it's current NTFS partition down by 50GB. Then used an Ubuntu LiveCD to gain access to GParted and with that 50GB free I formatted it with an Ext3 system. It does this no problems. I then can't write anything to this partition? I've tried doing "chmod 777 /dev/sdb2" but it says Operation not Permitted.
EDIT: Need to be able to use it on YDL 6.2 on my PS3, YDL doesn't have NTFS write support and I want to transfer files larger than 4GB rendering Fat32 useless. No I'm not able to re-size or compress this large file.