gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Hello everyone. I just got a Corsair Flash Voyager GTR 32GB USB stick. There are a couple of questions I would like to ask you guys to benefit from your experience. First a little background info: I am using two computers (older one with Win XP Pro SP3 32-bit and a newer one with Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit). The stick I bought will be used solely to transfer experimental result files (both text and binary) between those. Number of files range from 2000 to 3000 per transfer and individual file sizes range from 4 to 10 MB (total data amount varies from 10 to 30 GBs). Now the questions: 1) What is your recommendation for the format FAT32, exFAT or NTFS? 2) What would the best cluster size be? 3) Should I prefer to zip all 2000+ files and transfer as a whole or copy them individually? Thanks for all your help. Cheers. gkaytaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synthohol Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 ntfs is needed for large file sizes. why not just use a crossover network cable? or are the computers at different locations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 ntfs is needed for large file sizes. why not just use a crossover network cable? or are the computers at different locations? Thanks for the reply. The files are not very big (4 to 10 megs each). They are just numerous. You are correct. The computers are some 25 miles apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted October 22, 2010 Corsair Employees Share Posted October 22, 2010 The drive will be Fat32 by default and with Fat32 you will have a file size limitation of about 3 Gig per file for speed sake I would suggest using 3 or 4 -3 zip files and transfer or cop the files on the flash drive in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 Thanks. I will transfer the files as you suggest. I will also try to do some benchmarking (HDBench) as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted October 22, 2010 Corsair Employees Share Posted October 22, 2010 NP Please let us know if you have any more questions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 Here's the benchmark file of my Corsair Flash Voyager GTR 32GB as promised... All tests done using HDBench 200MB file, O/S Win 7 Home Prem 64-bit (stick was formatted with FAT32 on the Win XP Pro SP3 machine earlier today). Antivirus, firewall, other non-essential tray programs all shut down during the tests. 1) Connected to a USB 3.0 port (via the supplied USB cable): Read - 30038 Write - 24812 Random Read - 30104 Random Write - 6855 2) Connected to a USB 3.0 port (direct connection): Read - 30038 Write - 24812 Random Read - 30104 Random Write - 6862 3) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (via the supplied cable): Read - 30108 Write - 24812 Random Read - 30104 Random Write - 6848 4) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (direct connection): Read - 30104 Write - 24860 Random Read - 30104 Random Write - 6840 5) Connected to a front USB 2.0 port: Read - 30108 Write - 24812 Random Read - 30108 Random Write - 6869 These are pretty much identical. I guess I have hit a limit set by the motherboard or the O/S. Then again 30 MB/s and 24.8 MB/s are quite impressive. I will try the same config on the Win XP machine on Monday and post the results here. Just for kicks here's the HDBench benchmark identical to test 5) except that filesize has been changed to 100 MB: 6) Connected to a front USB 2.0 port: Read - 29959 Write - 23352 Random Read - 30099 Random Write - 3626 These numbers prompted me to try a larger file. Same test with a 500 meg file: 7) Connected to a front USB 2.0 port: Read - 30108 Write - 25861 Random Read - 30108 Random Write - 5403 Last but not least some Atto benchmarks for test #7 (everything left at their default values): Tr size - Write - Read 0.5 - 407 - 450 1.0 - 676 - 1365 2.0 - 1274 - 2730 4.0 - 1473 - 5461 8.0 - 6869 - 9372 16.0 - 11484 - 16384 32.0 - 18170 - 23860 64.0 - 24453 - 30840 128.0 - 24591 - 30840 256.0 - 26240 - 30840 512.0 - 26137 - 30854 1024.0 - 26577 - 30854 2048.0 - 26736 - 30854 4096.0 - 26604 - 30854 8192.0 - 26709 - 30854 Again I seem to have hit a limit. Perhaps the stick needs to have a different cluster size than the default one or the file system needs to be changed to exFAT or NTFS. I guess things will become clear after I finish tests with Win XP on Monday. Would it make a difference if I formatted the stick with Win 7 (FAT32, default cluster size)? What possible bottlenecks are there that limit the transfer speed? That's it for now. Wishing you all a great weekend... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 Just realized a funny thing... You guys are starring words that happen to be the names of other manufacturers :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synthohol Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 NO DISCUSSION OF COMPETITORS: This forum is here for the express purpose of supporting current and future users of Corsair Memory. Please do not discuss competing products or their suppliers by name on this forum, either in a positive light or a negative one. Such posts or threads will be edited or deleted at our discretion. Please contact the makers of that product for help. As stated above, their names are filtered out from public view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 NO DISCUSSION OF COMPETITORS: This forum is here for the express purpose of supporting current and future users of Corsair Memory. Please do not discuss competing products or their suppliers by name on this forum, either in a positive light or a negative one. Such posts or threads will be edited or deleted at our discretion. Please contact the makers of that product for help. As stated above, their names are filtered out from public view. Easy, please... As you can see from my earlier post, my intention was never anything like that. It just so happened that an English word caused a filter to kick in and I made a simple remark about it. Sorry if I offended anyone :bigeyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 He wasn't yelling at you, he just copied / pasted it from the rules thread, that's all :) As long as you don't go around the filter you're fine. I've edited your post so that it makes sense now (no asterisks) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 No problem at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 23, 2010 Author Share Posted October 23, 2010 ...I've edited your post so that it makes sense now (no asterisks) :) Cool :cool: Thankie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 25, 2010 Author Share Posted October 25, 2010 Part II of the benchmarks. All tests done using HDBench 200MB file, O/S Win XP Pro SP3 32-bit (stick was formatted with FAT32 on this machine). Antivirus, firewall, other non-essential tray programs all shut down during the tests. 1) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (front panel): Read - 33862 Write - 23700 Random Read - 33862 Random Write - 6559 2) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (back panel): Read - 33862 Write - 21915 Random Read - 34042 Random Write - 6602 Next test was to repeat the previous ones with a 100 meg file: 3) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (back panel): Read - 33761 Write - 19501 Random Read - 34121 Random Write - 3377 4) Connected to a USB 2.0 port (front panel): Read - 33595 Write - 22362 Random Read - 29510 Random Write - 3353 ATTO benchmarks (all defaults): Tr size - Write - Read 0.5 - 425 - 874 1.0 - 623 - 2403 2.0 - 1356 - 3891 4.0 - 1710 - 7858 8.0 - 10850 - 12800 16.0 - 16995 - 21277 32.0 - 22808 - 28555 64.0 - 26319 - 34492 128.0 - 26162 - 34538 256.0 - 26214 - 34402 512.0 - 26036 - 34503 1024.0 - 26525 - 34458 2048.0 - 26525 - 34370 4096.0 - 26525 - 34370 8192.0 - 26577 - 34195 These numbers made me think that the GTR reads a little faster in the machine it was formatted on. Does that make sense? Also Win 7 seems to have better writing benchmarks compared to XP (HDBench and ATTO disagree on this one). I am inclined to say that overall Win XP suits the stick a tad better... I will repeat these tests next week and try to come up with some statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted October 26, 2010 Corsair Employees Share Posted October 26, 2010 The controller and the operating system you use can both have an impact on performance but it seems your drive is performing at or above spec so I do not see any problems.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkaytaz Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 The controller and the operating system you use can both have an impact on performance but it seems your drive is performing at or above spec so I do not see any problems.. I am very happy with it. Just wanted to share the data and perhaps find out ways to make the stick perform at its peak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employees RAM GUY Posted October 26, 2010 Corsair Employees Share Posted October 26, 2010 I do not remember the review site off the top of my head but there are several good reviews that discusses performance with our GTR drives just search for Corsair GTR drive and reviews I am sure you will find them. I will look for them when I have a chance but check on the Review Link on our main web site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.