Stewart Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 04:24:18PM +1100, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Jason White wrote:
Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for their very helpful ............snip USB 2 is notoriously slow in this scenario. For details, look up Sarah Sharp's talk at LCA several years ago on USB 3, which solves the problems. As I recall, it isn't the actual data transfer rate that causes the poor performance, but I can't remember the details now. Apologies for digression; all I could find of Sarah's talk were some presentation slides ; which didn't seem very informative...........not with-standing ; Wikipedia quotes maximum data transfer rates: for USB 2.0 at 480 Mb/s and USB 3.0 at 5Gb/s; is the above to be read as stating that; actually one can expect USB 3.0 to USB 2.0 ratio > (5Gb/s / 480Mb/s) = 10 ? regards Rohan McLeod Continuing the digression, you can find Sarah Sharp's talk here: http://mirror.internode.on.net/pub/linux.conf.au/2010/friday/50230.ogv An excellent presentation even if sound level of the recording seemed a little low, but I am a bit deaf !; what I took away was USB 3.0 is much faster and and more energy efficient than USB 2.0 ; what I wasn't clear to me was : 1/ Whether device identification in a USB 3.0 'tree' for the purpose of diagnostics had improved 2/ Whether the stability of such 'trees' has improved; I have all but given up on such USB networks, in favour of ethernet networks. Whilst my printer occasionally has it's IP address reallocated, whilst plugged into the Netcomm NB86Plus4W 'Modem Router'; ethernet whether as hardware or software doesn't seem to share the extreme 'brittleness' characteristic of USB networks
regards Rohan McLeod