pepak Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 Hi! I received a brand new Corsair Flash Voyager 4 GB as xmas gift. I have been playing on and off with it, and I am rather disappointed with its speed - according to the specs, it should manage up to 33 MB/s on reads and 16 MB/s on writes. While the read speed is as expected (at about 15 MB/s - I do have rather low expectations about speeds companies claim), the most I have seen is about 2.7 MB/s on writes - and that's sustained speed on long files. I tried the stick on four different computers and the write speeds ranged from 700 KB/s to 2.7 MB/s. All of the computers have Windows XP, USB 2.0 ports and all regularly manage at least 15 MB/s on my external USB harddrives. One of them was a clean install of the operating system. So my question is: Under what conditions can I expect speeds at least remotely resembling those advertised? I specifically requested the Flash Voyager under the impression that it would be fast; as I said, I expected that the advertised speeds wouldn't be attainable, but I hoped for at least 50% of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted December 29, 2006 Corsair Employees Share Posted December 29, 2006 Can you tell me the program that you are using to get these results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepak Posted December 29, 2006 Author Share Posted December 29, 2006 Can you tell me the program that you are using to get these results? Primarily, I use FAR Manager, but the results in Windows Explorer are pretty much the same and match the average transfer rate (total data size divided by total time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 2, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 2, 2007 Please try HD Tach or sysoft and use 100 Mb file or setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepak Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Well, HDTach only measures read speeds which I am quite content about. But it does agree with my real-life measurements on them (real-life: about 16 MB/s; HDTach - average 16.3 MB/s, burst 19.2 MB/s) so it should probably match real-life speeds for write, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 2, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 2, 2007 We can try replacing your drive but it may be just the way you are testing the drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sourcemaker Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Hi, I have a new Flash Voyager 1GB stick and I check then performanc on two PC one is W2K and then other Windows XP. I copied (with Windows Explorer) 450 mb to then stick on the W2K 2 minutes 15 seconds on the XP above 6 minutes (I tested both with source network drive and source local drive), how can it be ? (Hardware from then XP is much newer) Best Regards Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 5, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 5, 2007 Frank is this the exact same files that you are coping? Do you have antivirus running or any other software running in the back ground? Do you have other USB devices connected to the same HUB/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sourcemaker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Yes it is a complete directory with the same files. Yes antivirus ETrust is running (on both stations) but I have test to disable it and no change. At the XP-Station no other USB-Device is connected. The directory contains 290 files and the most of them is little (under 1mb). I have test it cause a colleg reports me that his stick (the same type) is so slow. Best Regards Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 8, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 8, 2007 Please try and format the drive from a command prompt with this syntax: Format (X:) /FS:FAT32 /U (X=the drive letter assigned to the Flash Voyager) If you still have problems, let’s get it replaced. Please use the RMA request found in TSXpress or follow the link in my signature “I think I have a bad part!” and we will be happy to replace them or it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isomorph Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I also have a problem with the flash voyager... i tested the 512 and 1gb with the same data on the same machine running the same software. both sticks had a brand new fat32 primary partition the 1gb stick was way slower in copying reading etc.... what to do ? just sent the 1gb stick in and get it replaced? can you link me the adress of a branch office in germany, please? regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 12, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 12, 2007 Please try your reseller and I would test it in another system and format it from a command Prompt with the syntax I posted previously to be sure and you can run HD Tach and see how it performs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clroche Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I, like others, have been experiencing incredibly slow transfers. I have tried multiple machines (XP64 and XP32) with antivirus turned off and the results are the same. I have also tried multiple flash voyagers with the same results. I tried the syntax you recommended with no improvement. I tried the same test on another brand (though only 128MB stick) and if you blinked you'd miss the transfer was so fast. But here is the interesting part. If I transfer a very large file then the transfer is very fast as expected. The problem appears to be that a zero byte file transfer takes about 1 second...as does a 5MB file. My test transfers around 200 small files and this takes approximately 5 minutes. So the problem has to do with file overhead somehow. I don't believe the parts themselves are bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_motu Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 clroche see another thread i started "Voyager 16GB performance issue" for comments and some performance metrics on single file versus multiple file transfers.....in a nutshell, there is HUGE overhead in the flash controller that effectively renders these things useless in practical terms for movements involving lots of small files. ram guy confirms in that thread that my measurements are about what Corsair would expect. regards john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clroche Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'll buy that but why did I get such good performance on a 128MB PNY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_motu Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 clroche you got better performance on the 128MB other brand almost certainly because it was using a more efficient flash controller -- simple as that. the way ram guy phrased one of his responses suggests Corsair used a cheaper or less sophisticated (ie slower) controller at least partly to keep costs down. unfortunately, this has rendered the product unusable for me (and i believe for many others) -- i would rather have paid an extra $50 or so and had the speed (although to be fair i've no idea what a faster flash controller would cost) to render the capacity effective. regards john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clroche Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Thanks a bunch for taking the time to explain. I guess I'll do more homework in the future to make wiser choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habanr Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 The MLC flash technology Corsair uses in new high capacity flash drives is bad in all important parameters: write speed (at least 5x slower than SLC), durability (10x less cycles than SLC) , reliability. Please consult document http://www.pamiec.com.pl/pub/Samsung_SLC_NAND_Flash_Advantage.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted January 23, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted January 23, 2007 Yes but there is one aspect your missing, SLC technology limits the size to 4-8 Gig so thus one of the reasons to Move to MLC also when you look at the market in general every one is moving to MLC and I mean every one. We have to stay competitive in the market with like products. We will release performance flash products with in the coming months to offer those who want performance rather then density or price. I do apologize for any inconvenience. But the market is forcing the trends here not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archange Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Hello, I registered on the forum just to be able to post to this thread. I've recently aquired a Flash Voyager (8 GB) and I seem to have run into some awkward problems when using it under Vista: write speeds DO NOT exceed 7-800 kbps (!) while read performance is around 20 Mbps. (tested using single .avi - 700 MB file) I should mention that under XP and Linux read-write performance is constantly soaring between 15 -25 Mbps in both read / write (reported by Total Commander) - as long as PCs are USB 2.0 compliant. I've also tested on both the 32 bit and the 64 bit Vista, on multiple PC / notebook platforms, with the same results. All PC's have the USB set to "Hi Speed" - 480 Mbps in their BIOS. Moreover, when booting the same machine under Linux with a Live CD, the Voyager works at nominal speeds. As far as I can tell, there must be something weird going on with the drive settings unde Vista, I just don't know what exactly. So If you can help, I'd really appreciate it. P.S. Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but I had to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted June 27, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted June 27, 2007 Just for experiment try formatting the Drive with NTFS and then try the same test again. I am not sure if Linux will see NTFS but if it will NTFS will give the best performance in Vista. You might have to change the properties of the Drive to Non removable to change the file system but you can change it back afterwards. Please try to format the drive from a command prompt with this syntax: Format (X:) /FS:FAT32 /U (X=the drive letter assigned to the Flash Voyager) If you still have problems we can get it or them replaced, please use the On Line RMA Request Form and we will be happy to replace them or it. /FS:FAT = Fat 16 /FS:FAT32 = Fat 32 /FS:NTFS = NTFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milen Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I have recently bought a 1GB Corsair Flash Voyager CMFUSB2.0-1GB and I am extremely disappointed by the performance of the device. I have formatted the device and tested it with HDTACH as advised on the forum, but the results are quite upsetting: Read – 10159 Write – 2195 RRead – 10128 RRead – 449 The results do not come even close to the performance speeds advertised on the retailer’s site: “Supports sustained read speed of 19MB/sec Supports sustained write speed of 13MB/sec” I can live with the read speeds, but the write speeds are very disappointing. This is the first Corsair product I have ever bought (and might well be the last one :(:). I have bought the product tempted by Corsair’s excellent reputation of quality, performance, reliability and durability, but it seems that the product does not live up to the company’s high reputation for at least one of these four aspects (time will show about the rest). Perhaps, a part of my disappointment is due to the fact that I have a no-name USB flash device that performs approximately twice better and had cost twice less than the Corsair Flash Voyager. I understand the company’s need to move to a cheaper technology to remain competitive on the market, but I would expect the move to happen when the cheaper technology could provide at least barely comparative performance results. As far as I understood from the forum, other customers are experiencing similar disappointing performance results, while they had considerably better experience with previous devices from the same product line. I find it misleading and very discouraging that a company with the reputation of Corsair would sell devices that demonstrate such considerable performance differences under the same product name. Well, perhaps, living in a post-communist Eastern European country, I should be more used to being taken advantage of by various parties :(:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted July 13, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted July 13, 2007 I don't think you are being taken advantage of, this is normal for all Flash makers. I would suggest asking the reseller if they will let you return it and get our GT version. Also please post a link to the resellers site so we can get them to fix that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milen Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 I don't think you are being taken advantage of, this is normal for all Flash makers. Perhaps, this was not the most precise choice of words on my side, but it is still disappointing. I would suggest asking the reseller if they will let you return it and get our GT version. The GT does not have a 1GB model and I do not need the extra capacity of the 2GB model right now (plus it is considerably more expensive). Also please post a link to the resellers site so we can get them to fix that information. I prefer to notify the retailer about this myself. Thanks for the offer, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted July 16, 2007 Corsair Employees Share Posted July 16, 2007 You can sure talk to the reseller, but I would still like to make sure the information they post is correct if you would please, it will also prevent it from happening to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.