*** USB transfer rate VERY slow

Somethings going on with my MacPro. It's a 2 x 3 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon and it's having extreme difficulty recently transferring files. Currently I'm transferring a file from one of my external HDs to another (something I've done millions of times in the past) and it's going to take 35 minutes to transfer a 975.1mb file. This would take less than a minute on my iBook G4.
What could be the problem here and does anyone have a good suggestion to solve it? This is painful.
Thanks in advance

Something may be forcing it to USB 1.1 speed. Are there any USB hubs (such as the USB hub in the display) between the computer and the drive? Have you tried different USB ports on the computer?

Similar Messages

Time Capsule Ethernet Transfer rate very slow

Hello,
In order to transfer a 65Gb file from an iMac to TC, I decided to use the Ethernet port instead of wireless. The transfer rate is about 1-2Mbs /s instead of a regular Ethernet 100Mbs /s. It's been 4 hours so far and will probably be 7 hours when it's completed.
Facts
I turned off Airport.
I'm using an Ethernet CAT5 cable.
Why is it so slow?? Is there a setting I'm missing?
Thanks,

In the real world if you have ethernet 10/100/1000 and are using a cat 6 cable then expect no more than 11M/sec
8 M/sec if wireless N
4 M/sec if wireless B/G
Cat5 you'd use for ethernet 10/100 narrow band width.

Usb transfer rate problem with bootcamp

hello
drivers for uEye cameras are only available for windows platforms. so i am running windows xp on the latest mac mini with the latest bootcamp drivers in order to use the camera.
everything works great until i plug in another usb device. the transfer rate of the camera decreases dramatic (1/2). the second usb device is an usb hub with a microcontroller. it consumes only low transfer rates.
this constellation works perfect on other pcs. i can't compare it on os x because no drivers for the camera are available.
are there known issues with usb transfer rates on intel mac minis? firewire cameras and harddrives should suffer similar problems.
greetings
michael

are there known issues with usb transfer rates on
intel mac minis? firewire cameras and harddrives
should suffer similar problems.
Welcome to Apple Discussions!
To address this specific point - no, there are no known issues with USB transfer rates that are common to Macs but not PCs. The weakness of the USB standard is that it is controlled by the host system rather than a dedicated controller, thus transfer rates (on both Mac and PC platforms) are determined by what the system is doing overall. As a result, transfer rates vary quite dramatically. Firewire, on the other hand, has a dedicated controller which ensures that a consistent data rate is achieved, almost regardless of other system activity. That's why you will often see it recommended that FW is used for external drives rather than USB, since while USB will generally provide better burst rates of data transfer, FW will generally provide far better sustained data rates, despite being theoretically slower.
In your situation, I can't help but wonder if the hub you mention is not causing the system some issues. It would not have to be a matter of it causing any significant data transfer itself, but could be the result of the hub's controller forcing the system into activity which then suppresses potential performance from the camera.
One thing is sure: if the camera works well without the hub connected, but degrades in performance with it, the issue is not with the system or the camera, but the hub.

Usb transfer rate decay drastically

hi to everybody,
i have a problem:
when i transfer to an usb, transfer rate decay drastically
tested with USB flash and microSD card with its adaptor; with Mac OS i reach the maximum, for example 10MB/s, and the transfer rate remains constant; if i use arch, it reach the maximum but after some time decay to 2 MB/s.....
is normal ??? anybody have this issue ???

Much has been posted in many distros concerning the USB flash problem.
A tutorial regarding the design of Flash devices reveals the basic problem with Flash in general.
It is designed to perform in u know what..windows. The design sets up Flash in FAT32 and lo and behold it runs best in windows!
Trying to get the industry to design specially for Linux is like trying to get a donkey to move.
There seems to be workarounds for various applied "imbedded" flash for elements of the Linux system such as usr and etc wherein reads and writes are minimal.
Cheaper Flash devices vary widely in performance due to algorithms provided or not.
Flashbench and bonnie++ are programs which provide analysis of Flash devices to determine performance of the devices under various modes. Many of the devices thusly analyzed are listed on the internet for users to examine...Linaro seems to be the main activity for such reports.
One recommend for Linux is to use ext4 and have at least 8GB of memory available..therefore 64bit. There probably are reasons for not going that route for some (including the cost).
Raid is also recommended.
The picture is indeed clouded and has been for years.
Perhaps a way to use FAT in Linux will come along but don't hold your breath!
Last edited by lilsirecho (2011-09-25 15:46:23)

Internal Disk to Disk Data Transfer Speed Very Slow

I have a G5 Xserve running Tiger with all updates applied that has recently started experiencing very slow Drive to Drive Data transfer speeds.
When transferring data from one drive to another ( Internal to Internal, Internal to USB, Internal, Internal to FW, USB to USB or any other combination of the three ) we only are getting about 2GB / hr transfer speeds.
I initially thought the internal drive was going bad. I tested the drive and found some minor header issues etc... that were able to be repaired so I replace the internal boot drive
I tested and immediately got the same issue.
I also tried booting from a FW drive and I got the same issue.
If I connect to the server over the ethernet network, I get what I would expect to be typical data transfer rates of about 20GB+ / hr. Much higher than the internal rates and I am copying data from the same internal drives so I really don't think the drive is the issue.
I called AppleCare and discussed the issue with them. They said it sounded like a controller issue so I purchased a replacement MLB from them. After replacing the drive data transfer speeds jumped back to normal for about a day maybe two.
Now we are back to experiencing slow data transfer speeds internally ( 2GB / hr ) and normal transfer speeds ( 20GB+ / hr ) over the network.
Any ideas on what might be causing the problem would be appreciated

As suggested, do check for other I/O load on the spindles. And check for general system load.
I don't know of a good GUI in-built I/O monitor here (and particularly for Tiger Server), though there is iopending and DTrace and Apple-provided [performance scripts|http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1992] with Leopard and Leopard Server. top would show you busy processes.
Also look for memory errors and memory constraints and check for anything interesting in the contents of the system logs.
The next spot after the controllers (and it's usually my first "hardware" stop for these sorts of cases, and usually before swapping the motherboard) are the disks that are involved, and whatever widgets are in the PCI slots. Loose cables, bad cables, and spindle-swaps. Yes, disks can sometimes slow down like this, and that's not usually a Good Thing. I know you think this isn't the disks, but that's one of the remaining common hardware factors. And don't presume any SMART disk monitoring has predictive value; SMART can miss a number of these cases.
(Sometimes you have to use the classic "field service" technique of swapping parts and of shutting down software pieces until the problem goes away. Then work from there.)
And the other question is around how much time and effort should be spent on this Xserve G5 box; whether you're now in the market for a replacement G5 box or a newer Intel Xserve box as a more cost-effective solution.
(How current and how reliable is your disk archive?)

Using USB storage devices very slow in SL

I have two MAC's and use Entourage on both, in order to keep my Microsoft Data Base sync's I have it on a removable storage device which I move from MAc to Mac. Since updating to 10.6.1(SL) Entourage has slowed down to a snails pace and I can only assume that SL is doing something different in handling the USB external storage devices .
Very disappointing and frustrating .....Apple not a good move
Anyone else having problems
Thx
John

Yes, there are many threads about slow usb transfer or slow i/o in general e.g. (not necessary linux 3-related)
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 00#p995000
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=110590
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124856
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=112846
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=123929
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124191
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124570 linux 3
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=125167
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=125826
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=126261 exFAT
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=120982
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 78#p994878
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127051
Was the issue present in kernel26 as well? What filesystem does your usb device have? How slow is the transfer?
Last edited by karol (2011-11-19 15:30:59)

External USB HD is very slow during SuperDuper backup

I am using an external USB harddisk to backup my iMac. I have formated the disk with a Mac OS X file system and it mounts without any fault.
I am using SuperDuper to copy all my files from my internal to the external harddisk. The throughout I get is something between 11-13 MB/s. This is very slow for USB spec that could be up to 40-50 MB/s.
Anybody has any idea what's going on here how i can improve this speed?

Hi aschmid,
the reported throughput of SuperDuper is largely depending on what files are backuped.
Large files usually backup faster than smaller ones.
Just for comparison, backup of approx. 48GB system volume :
MacPro - internal disc to internal disc = about 18 minutes
MacPro - internal to external FireWire 800 = about 25 minutes
iMac - internal to external FireWire400 = about 55 minutes
(The duration are rough, coming from my memory).
Regards
Stefan

Transfer rate too slow

hi guys!!!
just wondering though...
1) just recently i noticed that transfer rate from my external hard drive to my MBP gets slower.., transferring a 150MB would take like 10mins..so im just wondering what could be done to resolve this issue...
2) and how can i uninstall program.. ( i installed the parallel and eventually installed windows XP on it, in order for me to run some window based application, furthermore, since i dont need it anymore,,, i just dragged the parallel application to the trash). is that all....what about the windows OS that has been installed together with the parallel, is it also deleted???
3) how can i increase the memory speed of my MBP?
thanks in advance guys

well it is probably because you drive is formatted in ntfs if that's the case the transfer speed is not that sexy I must admit ..try using a drive with journalled mac format and see the difference
for parallels yes the windows is gone but i recommend using clean my mac application fro getting rid of leftovers and for future installs
you can expand your memory by adding more ram or you can actually speed it up buy adding lower latenyc hyperx memory modules from kingston altho the difference won't be THAT much

HDD data transfer rate is slow in my new i7

Hi
I had MacBook Pro 15" , 2.8 GHz , 500 GB HDD and because of some hardware problems Apple replace this laptop with new MacBook Pro 15" 2.66 i7 CPU, 500 GB HDD. I install same windows7 64bit in both via Boot camp. Disk transfer rate in old MacBook is 5.9 and in my new laptop is 5.6 ?!?!?!?
I installed Bootcamp drivers and also installed all updates of windows7.
Can you tell me reason of this difference and any solution to improve this rate?

Hi n, and welcome to Apple Discussions.
As you're still covered under warranty, call AppleCare or go to an Apple Store or AASP and explain the situation. A replacement computer is supposed to meet or exceed the machine it replaced, and if yours isn't performing to that level . . . .

Transfer rate with USB 5102 is very slow (8 updates/sec). Any possible way to increase it??

Taking 100 microsec data from 32 sensors we want to monitor results in real time. Because of slow data transfer protocol (niScope_InitiateAcquisition - niScope_FetchBinary8 loop) for USB NI5102 (~125ms) we can update only every 4 sec. Any way to speed it up? Is PCMCIA 5102 will do it faster (we don't have PCI)??

To verify, you wish to take data for 100 microseconds on each of 32 sensors and display the data in "real time." The problem is the overhead of the initiate/acquire, not the actual acquisition time or theoretical data transfer time. Have you considered taking all your data in a single acquisition? I assume you are already multiplexing the signal to the 5102. This will require a bit of work in setting up the advance trigger for the multiplexer and the reference trigger for the 5102, but this is far cheaper than buying another acquisition board. Your data acquisition sequence would then be:
Set 5102 for 64000 points, 20MHz, 0% trigger reference position (add more points if needed for settling time)
Set multiplexer to first channel
Iniate acquisition on the USB-5102 (you may want to use the hardware start trigger for repeatability)
Trigger 5102 to start acquisition
Cycle multiplexer through the 32 sensors with 100 microsecond dwell time per sensor (add extra dwell time for settling time as needed)
Read data from 5102
Parse the data by splitting the array using your known timing
With this method, you only take the overhead hit once per scan instead of 32 times. You should be able to get single-digit Hz update rates. You can speed up the data acquisition by using both channels of the 5102 (unless you are already doing this for some sort of data reduction). If you are doing this in LabVIEW, pass your data into a queue in your acquistion loop and pull it out of the queue in a separate loop to process and display. This allows you to time multiplex the acquisition and display.
This account is no longer active. Contact ShadesOfGray for current posts and information.

USB i/o very slow

Copying files from an external HDD to another USB source (e.g. flashdrive) slows down my computer to a crawl/freezes it. When this occurs I think the copying process is still going on but goes very slowly.
Another problem is that the power of my external HDD goes off once the PC starts booting Arch. I have to manually pull out the cable and plug it in again. But maybe this is unrelated.
I have no idea how to solve this problem.
Below the output of lspci (if it is of any use)
Thanks in advance!
[bart@ArchPC ~]$ lspci
00:00.0 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] Memory Controller (rev a2)
00:01.0 ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] LPC Bridge (rev a2)
00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] SMBus (rev a1)
00:01.2 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] Memory Controller (rev a1)
00:01.3 Co-processor: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] Co-Processor (rev a2)
00:01.4 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] Memory Controller (rev a1)
00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev a1)
00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev a1)
00:04.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev a1)
00:04.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev a1)
00:06.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] IDE (rev a1)
00:07.0 Audio device: nVidia Corporation MCP72XE/MCP72P/MCP78U/MCP78S High Definition Audio (rev a1)
00:08.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Bridge (rev a1)
00:09.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] SATA Controller (non-AHCI mode) (rev a2)
00:0b.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:10.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:12.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:13.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Bridge (rev a1)
00:14.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP78S [GeForce 8200] PCI Bridge (rev a1)
00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] HyperTransport Technology Configuration
00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Address Map
00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] DRAM Controller
00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Miscellaneous Control
01:06.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6306/7/8 [Fire II(M)] IEEE 1394 OHCI Controller (rev c0)
02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation C77 [GeForce 8200] (rev a2)
04:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8056 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 12)
[bart@ArchPC ~]$

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=111575
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=112846
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=123929
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124191
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124570
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=125167
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40262
No definite solutions however.

Time Capsule wifi file transfer is very slow

File transfer to and from Time Capsule over wifi is way too slow. I'm trying to transfer a 8 gb file and it says will last over a day to do it! I restart the time capsule several times and I see no improvement.
I have a 2 GB Time capsule model BCGA1302 running 7.6.3 firmware. My wireless network is set to 802.11a/n - 802.11b/g/n (automatic) and I have a Macbook Pro Retina mid 2013.

I am having issues interpreting the screenshots.. but the name on both 2.4ghz and 5ghz is the same. Lothlorien
The 5ghz is added by the TC itself.. so it is not a different name.
The speed on 2.4ghz is 54Mbps and it is using channel 1
The speed on 5ghz is 27Mbps on channel 157
I am not sure what the % values mean.
But I do know that if this is one wall then the wall must be made out of stone or wet bricks.. or some very solid material .. because that is terrible.
Put the TC in the same room as the computer or move the computer to the same room as the TC.. do you get better speeds now??
The final conclusion is.. use ethernet.. again as I say.. wireless is not suitable for backup if you cannot get decent link speeds.. internet is probably fine at 54Mbps .. that should give real world transfer speed of around 22Mbps which is as fast as adsl at least can go.

[FPGA] Loop rate very slow: Do FPGA I/O nodes in parallel loops block each other?

Hi,
I am using cRIO-9075. Mod1 is NI 9263, Mod2 is NI 9227, Mod3 is 9215.
Please see my VI attached or the given screenshot.
The FPGA code is based on the "NI CompactRIO Waveform Reference Library" (it's the lower loop).
The upper loop was added by me and is writing a waveform from blockmemory to the NI 9263 module (Mod 1).
The data sampled in the lower loop is running at 1 kHz. The control "AO Update Period" for the upper loop has a value of (for example) 10 (=uS).
The problem is, that this loop is running much much slower than it should. Once I disable the FPGA I/O node in the lower loop (as done in the attachments), it's running as fast as it should.
It seems to me, that the FPGA I/O nodes are blocking each other. I tried to figure it out by reading through serveral NI documents, but until now I have no idea how to solve that.
Can you give me some advices? Some general tipps about the VI?
Thanks!
Attachments:
FPGA Loop Rate.PNG ‏72 KB
FPGA Main.vi ‏251 KB

Hi, thanks so far.
Originally the control was inside the loop. Then I tried if it makes a difference if it's outside.
Ok, i really seems to be that default value of "100000" for "AO Update Period".
Starting the VI directly woks like expected. Having "AO Update period" inside the loop makes it possible to control it as it's running.
But, please see the attachment. When starting the FPGA through RT and setting the appropiate value, it does not seem to work. The oscilloscope show's the same behavior like "AO Update Period" was 100000.
But when reading the value of "AO Update Period" afterwards (while the FPGA is running), it shows the expected value of "10".
Having changed the default value to 10 works so far, but I am not able to changed it (see attachment).
So the problem is: Why is "Read/Write control" not working here? Why is still the default value used?
Attachments:
FPGA Loop Rate 2.PNG ‏5 KB

ITunes Home Share file transfer occasionally very slow

Hello... I just wanted to ask a question about a situation that occasionally occurs with my iTunes Home Sharing. Sometimes, the transfer of files from my Windows to my Mac is extremely slow. It does eventually finish successfully but this only happens once in a while, as the transfer process is usually a breeze. I wanted to know if when the connection isn't as strong and the transfer is slow, do my files get in any way damaged or incorrectly transferred? Like, bitwise? (is data lost or missed etc...). I know that moving digital media around can be a bit sketchy sometimes.
Thanks.

Golybs wrote:
is there a way to find out why "a file is in use" / what process is using it, and kill that process?
Yes. Launch the Terminal utility and enter this command:
sudo lsof | grep "sometext"
That character after "lsof" is a "vertical bar", which should be on the far right of the row with "P". The first character of "lsof" is a lower-case letter "L". The text "sometext" should be replaced with at least part of the name of the file that seems to be locked. The quotes aren't necessary unless there's a space (or one of a few other odd characters) in the text you put in the command. After you type the text, press <return>. You'll be prompted for your administrative password.
If the culprit turns out to be Finder, try clicking on the Finder icon on the Dock while you hold down an "option" key, then choose "Relaunch".
how can I find out if some process is accessing the Time Capsule hard drive, keeping it busy and making the transfers slow?
That's a little harder. You could launch Activity Monitor and click on the "Network" tab in the lower part of the window. I'd also check the quality of the signal to the Time Capsule
If you have an Apple AirPort base station, I'd use the advice in this thread to investigate the signal and noise levels that each Mac sees, as described in this thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2347845&start=1

New itunes copy/rip rate very slow

hello all,
after updating itunes to new version my rip rate has dropped, instead of a rate of about x7.0 to x10.0 i have dropped to x0.1 to x4.5.. it now take me hours!! to copy a regular store bought cd.
please does anybody have any ideas how to up the tempo (PS - reloading older version of itunes isn't working.)
thanks for any ideas, have a good one
ML

Tom,
Are you familiar with firewire target disk mode? If you were to connect the two computers using firewire you could do some file management. Make sure that you have key files on one machine and a TM backup. Then do a clean install on the Mini. Better yet, have you considered partitioning the drive on the mini so you can have the best of both worlds?
Depending on the size of the hard drive, you could have one partition for a clean install back up of just a system, one partition of the MacBookPro system with all your familiar settings and preferences and then one partition that is just a fresh start with every thing new and clean. All you have to do to compare and contrast is reboot to a different partition. If things get back to fast, you may not need or want all the old baggage that may be slowing you down.
Explore some options.
Ji~m

*** USB transfer rate VERY slow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for