On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:46:41AM +0200, Tino Schwarze wrote:
> I'd say: Replace that USB 2.0 disk by something else like something
> connected via Firewire or eSATA. USB 2.0 is very, very slow, especially
> for random access.

Hi Tino,

do you have empirical results that show this?  

Not having tested it myself, that is exactly the opposite of what i
would expect.

random access times are dominated primarily by disk head seek time,
which is gonna be the same no matter what the transport to the drive is.
So the slower transport won't matter nearly as much with random I/O as
it will with sequential.

SATA or SAS/SCSI with command queueing should have better random access
performance than anything without command queueing.  However, I don't
believe firewire has command queueing support, which would suggest that
this isn't what you're thinking of.  

danno

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/