Jump to content
Corsair Community

1 GB corsair USB slower than 512 MB???


Andreas Rehm

Recommended Posts

I just bought a second corsair flash voyager(1GB), but it´s much slower than than my one-year old 512 MB corsair. Copying a folder with 19 MB on my old corsair takes about 25 seconds, with my new corsair it takes almost 5 minutes. I am using both on my toshiba notebook(windows XP home). Can anybody tell me what´s wrong?

Thank´s for your help,

Andreas Rehm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in another system, the difference is not that big, the 1GB USB is only a little bit slower(e.g. it takes in an old Pentium 3 PC 24 sec.(with 512MB USB) and 40 sec.(with 1GB USB). Apparently it depends on the kind of data I´m trying to save on my USB:

On my notebook it takes 4 sec.(512 USB) / 30 sec(1GB USB) to save the 10MB folder and 5sec(512 USB) / 25 sec.(1GB USB) to save a 36MB folder.

Thank you for your help,

regards, Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed is only relative to the type of data you are transfering and the host device itself. I would suggest using a free benchmark program like HD Bench or SiSoft Sandra in order to see what the transfer rates are for the drive using the same tests. Once you have a real apple to apples comparison of what type of performance you are getting we can see if there is a real problem or not. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In SiSoftware 1GB Corsair flash voyager has a maximum of 660 ops/min, the 512 MB corsair flash voyager has about 6000 ops/min.

Generaly benckmarks such as HD Bench or SiSoft Sandra will give you bandwidth numbers in MB's. SiSoft Sandra has a "Removable Storage/Flash Benchmark" module. For a 1GB Flash Voyager you should be getting 17 MB's read and 13 MB's write on the 64 MB test. If you drive is considerably lower than this you should probably RMA it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what means I should "RMA" it?

Have you been able to benchmark the drive? What is the rated MB's you are getting on the 64 MB test? "RMA" Return Merchandise Authorization. Return it to your place of purchase or to Corsair directly if the drive is considerably slower than the rated speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello there!

 

I have almost the same problem: the speed I can write to my flash Voyager is very little, Total Commander 6.03 shows a max 360 KB/s, which continuously declines, even to the 150 KB/s!

SiSoft Sandra Lite v. 2007.6.10.98, shows about 600 /s.

 

But if I am pacient enough (I was successfuly copied Q4 demo on it, which is over 300MB), I can read at about 19MB/s from it, which is amazing. This is the reason I bought this Corsair, in fact.

 

The same on any other computer I have tried, 4 until now, 2 of mine, an destop with this configuration:

MB AOpen AX4G Pro

CPU Intel Mobile 1.2GHz

RAM 2x256 MB DDR-500 Vitesta A-Data

Video inno3D nVidia 5600 128MB

SB Audigy 2

HDD Maxtor 120GB + Maxtor 80GB

using XP Pro

and an HP Compaq NX 6125 using XP Home.

 

I only have the flash from last friday, june 22nd.

 

I have tried these, in this order:

1. format using Windows explorer - no change

2. downloaded and used Corsair_Flash_Voyager_Utility.exe - no change. Added password protected partition, just to see how it works, removed, reformated to only 1 partition - no increase in write speed

3. and finally, downloaded MS UFDSetupWizard.msi, link found on this forum - nothing useful (well, maybe make bootable).

 

I a problem with my flash memory? Should I retunt it to the seller?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

SiSoft Sandra report, run on HP Compaq NX6125, XP Home(32bit):

(SiSoft Sandra saves the report, but I don't know where :(, so this is a copy&paste)

 

SiSoftware Sandra

 

Benchmark Results

Combined Index : 503 operation(s)/min

Endurance Factor : 11.2

512B Files Test : 550 operation(s)/min

32kB Files Test : 566 operation(s)/min

256kB Files Test : 459 operation(s)/min

2MB Files Test : 131 operation(s)/min

64MB Files Test : 6 operation(s)/min

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

 

Performance Test Status

Run ID : NX on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 11:08:31 AM

Processor Affinity : No

System Timer : 3.6MHz

 

512B Files Test

Read Performance : 8045 operation(s)/min (4291 kB/sec, 28x)

Write Performance : 205 operation(s)/min (109 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 353 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 550 operation(s)/min

 

32kB Files Test

Read Performance : 9616 operation(s)/min (5129 kB/sec, 34x)

Write Performance : 209 operation(s)/min (111 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 374 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 566 operation(s)/min

 

256kB Files Test

Read Performance : 2235 operation(s)/min (9536 kB/sec, 63x)

Write Performance : 183 operation(s)/min (781 kB/sec, 5x)

Delete Performance : 373 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 459 operation(s)/min

 

2MB Files Test

Read Performance : 314 operation(s)/min (10718 kB/sec, 71x)

Write Performance : 55 operation(s)/min (1877 kB/sec, 12x)

Delete Performance : 357 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 131 operation(s)/min

 

64MB Files Test

Read Performance : 10 operation(s)/min (10923 kB/sec, 72x)

Write Performance : 3 operation(s)/min (3277 kB/sec, 21x)

Delete Performance : 167 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 6 operation(s)/min

 

Endurance Test Status

Operating System Disk Cache Used : No

Use Overlapped I/O : No

Test File Size : 32MB

Block Size : 512 byte(s)

File Fragments : 1

 

Endurance Benchmark Breakdown

Repeated Sector ReWrite : 9 kB/s

Sequential Sector Write : 285 kB/s

Random Sector Write : 9 kB/s

 

Drive

Total Size : 1.4GB

Free Space : 1.7GB, 127%

Cluster Size : 32kB

 

Performance Tips

Notice 5901 : CD 1x= 150kB/s; Exercise caution when comparing measured versus published ratings.

Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.

Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.

Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!

Notice 5207 : Consider using the File System Benchmark for non-Flash devices.

Notice 5900 : Endurance factor can only be used on the same type of device (SLC or MLC).

Tip 11 : Use the 'Switch Chart Type' button to switch between Detailed and Combined charts.

Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

512B Files Test

Read Performance : 8045 operation(s)/min (4291 kB/sec, 28x)

Write Performance : 205 operation(s)/min (109 kB/sec, 0x)

 

64MB Files Test

Read Performance : 10 operation(s)/min (10923 kB/sec, 72x)

Write Performance : 3 operation(s)/min (3277 kB/sec, 21x)

 

 

With the smaller files the read performance drops 2.5x but the write performance drops over 30x!

 

The numbers you measure seem inline with what I experience on my home PC, but the drive works fine on any other number of computers I have tested it with.

 

Unfortunately I cant run Sandra on Vista otherwise I'd confirm this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my data for a 1GB Corsair USB flash drive. I'm also running WinXP Home and Sandra version 2007.6.10.98:

 

SiSoftware Sandra

 

Benchmark Results

Combined Index : 2054 operation(s)/min

Endurance Factor : 12.3

512B Files Test : 941 operation(s)/min

32kB Files Test : 3958 operation(s)/min

256kB Files Test : 1787 operation(s)/min

2MB Files Test : 196 operation(s)/min

64MB Files Test : 12 operation(s)/min

Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

 

Performance Test Status

Run ID : Tuesday, July 04, 2006 at 9:51:33 PM

Processor Affinity : No

System Timer : 3.4GHz

 

512B Files Test

Read Performance : 21519 operation(s)/min (1435 kB/sec, 9x)

Write Performance : 299 operation(s)/min (20 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 3273 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 941 operation(s)/min

 

32kB Files Test

Read Performance : 17112 operation(s)/min (9126 kB/sec, 60x)

Write Performance : 1606 operation(s)/min (857 kB/sec, 5x)

Delete Performance : 3246 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 3958 operation(s)/min

 

256kB Files Test

Read Performance : 3728 operation(s)/min (15906 kB/sec, 106x)

Write Performance : 826 operation(s)/min (3524 kB/sec, 23x)

Delete Performance : 2807 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 1787 operation(s)/min

 

2MB Files Test

Read Performance : 498 operation(s)/min (16998 kB/sec, 113x)

Write Performance : 78 operation(s)/min (2662 kB/sec, 17x)

Delete Performance : 2199 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 196 operation(s)/min

 

64MB Files Test

Read Performance : 16 operation(s)/min (17476 kB/sec, 116x)

Write Performance : 7 operation(s)/min (7646 kB/sec, 50x)

Delete Performance : 195 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 12 operation(s)/min

 

Endurance Test Status

Operating System Disk Cache Used : No

Use Overlapped I/O : No

Test File Size : 32MB

Block Size : 512 byte(s)

File Fragments : 1

 

Endurance Benchmark Breakdown

Repeated Sector ReWrite : 175 kB/s

Sequential Sector Write : 150 kB/s

Random Sector Write : 9 kB/s

 

Drive

Total Size : 976MB

Free Space : 976MB, 100%

Cluster Size : 4kB

I'm curious about the extreme drop in read performance at the small end, particularly the 512B file size. It seems the program calculated the result here differently than the others, not sure why. Also, does anyone know if these are sequential or random figures? For Vista, it's the random values (for 4k block size transfers) that count, so I'd to know how I might benchmark random reads and writes if these are sequential figures.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
I would suggest using HDD Tach to test the drive speed, And you are using Beta O.S. from what you have posted so the results may not be valid. I would suggest testing with WINXP to compare. However, I have given you the directions to get the drive replaced if you want to try that. But you are asking questions about an un-supported O.S. So it makes it hard to answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starcub,

 

The drop in transfer speeds for small files is not unique to the Voyager, other high speed drives have the same characteristic. A few maintain fast writes down to 512bytes, most fall off rapidly below 16k.

 

Sandra measures sequencial transfers, as far as I can tell.

 

The Vista USB controller seems to use 4k blck random transfers when FAT formatted, regardless of the file size and all the time whether with ReadyBoost or just plain copying files, so unfortunately the Voyager is very slow. When NTFS formatted, I got fast transfers though. Try formatting the drive NTFS if you are using Vista a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. I'm not using Vista yet, just trying to evaluate if my USB drive will be usable as a ReadyBoost device for Vista if I eventually install Vista. Note that I ran the test in XP Home.

 

Will look into HDD Tach for random benchmarking...thanks.

 

I was comparing my small size transfer results with those of the previous poster. An exerpt from his results (same program version and OS) was as follows:

 

512B Files Test

Read Performance : 8045 operation(s)/min (4291 kB/sec, 28x)

Write Performance : 205 operation(s)/min (109 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 353 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 550 operation(s)/min

 

32kB Files Test

Read Performance : 9616 operation(s)/min (5129 kB/sec, 34x)

Write Performance : 209 operation(s)/min (111 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 374 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 566 operation(s)/min

 

For comparison, my results for the same test:

 

512B Files Test

Read Performance : 21519 operation(s)/min (1435 kB/sec, 9x)

Write Performance : 299 operation(s)/min (20 kB/sec, 0x)

Delete Performance : 3273 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 941 operation(s)/min

 

32kB Files Test

Read Performance : 17112 operation(s)/min (9126 kB/sec, 60x)

Write Performance : 1606 operation(s)/min (857 kB/sec, 5x)

Delete Performance : 3246 operation(s)/min

File Fragments : 1.0

Combined Index : 3958 operation(s)/min

 

Note the 512B to 32kB entries where his results go from:

8045 operation(s)/min (4291 kB/sec, 28x) to:

9616 operation(s)/min (5129 kB/sec, 34x)

The same results reported for my drive go from:

21519 operation(s)/min (1435 kB/sec, 9x) to:

17112 operation(s)/min (9126 kB/sec, 60x)

 

In terms of ops/min the results are understandable, but what accounts for the discrepency in the reported speed ratings? How is it that for me 21519 ops/min translates to 1435 kB/sec, 9x whereas the same test point for him shows 8045 operation(s)/min correlating to 4291 kB/sec, 28x?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a similar "issue".

 

I used to have an old 512MB Flash Voyager and that was fantastic until the USB connector snapped off when I unplugged it (doh!). That was a about half a year ago. I really loved it for the speed.

 

Thinking that I probably wouldn't be able to get an RMA, I decided to buy a new 1GB one. When writing, it seems a lot slower, and even slower still with small files. I didn't measure my old drive because I never felt the need - it felt faster than this. Reading is still seems good though and I get about 20MB/s (HDTach).

 

Here are some readings:

 

Sisoft Sandra:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/rohanch/corsair-sandra.gif

 

7-Zip (I used Halo Trial which is a single 130MB exe):

Max. 8000kB/s when copying to the drive

Max. 16MB/s when reading from the drive

 

Incidentally I also noticed that the packaging seems to have changed slightly since my 512mb and the rubber on the drive seems less sticky and less soft (maybe that's just me). Does anybody know if the drives are still using the same components? How old are the drives people used in the benchmarks posted here?

 

I also found that my Sandra readings are much slower than the ones in this benchmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine is about 6 months old. I bought it thinking that since I could boot from a USB HDD, I could probably boot from the flash drive as well -- I couldn't :(

So my flash drive hasn't gotten much use.

 

I read from a review on the Flash Voyager that some people were having problems with the rubber key ring hole breaking because the rubber was too soft, so they might have toughened up the rubber casing.

 

You also look to have a strange reporting result at the 512B file size. At 6138ops/min read, the program should be reporting a measly 51KB/sec transfer rate, but it reports 1637KB/sec. My 21519 ops/min nets me only 1435KB/sec when it should be 179KB/sec by my calculations. All that said, yes your benchmarks seem a tad slow, but your real world performance is still on par with most peoples'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine is about 6 months old. I bought it thinking that since I could boot from a USB HDD, I could probably boot from the flash drive as well -- I couldn't :(

So my flash drive hasn't gotten much use.

 

I read from a review on the Flash Voyager that some people were having problems with the rubber key ring hole breaking because the rubber was too soft, so they might have toughened up the rubber casing.

 

You also look to have a strange reporting result at the 512B file size. At 6138ops/min read, the program should be reporting a measly 51KB/sec transfer rate, but it reports 1637KB/sec. My 21519 ops/min nets me only 1435KB/sec when it should be 179KB/sec by my calculations. All that said, yes your benchmarks seem a tad slow, but your real world performance is still on par with most peoples'.

Your results look much faster than mine when writing.

 

I decided to test 7-Zip with small files this time. I copied the SYSLINUX folder from my HDD to the drive - it's about 500 small files totalling 6MB. The speed fluctuated quite a bit, but by the end of the copy it had averaged off to around 30KB/s, which is really really slow. The whole copy took 2mins:45secs.

 

By the way, I can boot from my Voyager. One older Dell PC I have doesn't detect it but the newer Dell laptop and my MSI-based PC work fine. What I did was download Puppy Linux and burn it to a CD and boot from CD. I then used the "Puppy Universal Installer" from the start menu to install Puppy to the flash drive. When asked about which MBR to use on the voyager, I found that the drive has to have the SYSLINUX MBR to work properly when booting. All of the other options were left default as instructed. This overwrites the MBR (make sure you have the right drive, not your HDD!) and then you can install any bootable system you want, even if you delete Puppy.

 

I actually have Knoppix 5 installed and working perfectly, as per the instructions here :):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I tried it out, and I think the problem is that my BIOS simply refuses to recognize the flash drive.

 

If you really aren't happy with your flash drive, you can always submit an RMA request per the instructions in the "Flash Drive Information" sticky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...