If I think it over, back in the early 90's when I replaced my 40MB HDD to
an enormous 120MB one, I could not even fill it up -- and now I could copy
the entire disk in 1 sec!

Tamas



On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Michael Watterson <mike@radioway.org>
> wrote:
> > On 15/04/2011 09:17, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> >> On the other hand, even though I have bought two
> >> USB 3.0 external hard disks, none of my PCs
> >> come with USB 3.0 host controller (XHCI)
> >
> > For Random Access, an HD might just beat USB 1.1
> >
> > Only bursts to or from the on-board controller cache can exhaust the
> > speed of USB 2.0 on a single drive.
> >
> > Drives are natively faster toward edge of platter. Native block transfe=
r
> > sequential speed (excluding track to track stepping or random access) i=
s
> > limited by rotational speed and bit density. For larger transfers, even
> > without Random Access, the track to track delay is very high.
> >
> > USB 2 is worthwhile. I'm sceptical that USB 3.0 is needed for ordinary
> > single drives.
>
> Just look at a simple benchmark comparison here.
> http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3D5761&p=3D2
>
> Or more comprehensive result here.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/usb-3.0-storage-charts/benchmarks-2,10=
8.html
>
> Then you will understand why USB 3.0 is necessary.
>
> --
> Xiaofan
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



--=20
int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=3D"int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
printf(s=3D%s%s%s, q=3D%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=3D%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q=3D"\"",s,q,q,a=3D"\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.