...
USB My Passport WD Drive (External)
70 Gb Data Transfer time is over 2 hours. Why is that so? How can I speed up the system?
Yes, thank you. Archiver is really an option for me. Thank you. It's really a kinda solvation for my prob. Now do it like you said. One big 7Zip (archiver) file without compression.A) Also, someone more knowledgeable, is it too much of a hassle to use raid 1 or somesuch (with 3 HDD's) ? Two HDD's at work at all times (two mirror HDD's), one at home as backup of the data. (Raid 1 keeps two identical copies I recall).
So at backup-day, take one HDD from work to home (new backup copy), next morning you're in trouble at work: comes when you bring ex-backup HDD from home to be overwritten. On plus side the data is always in two places.
Disclaimer: not a clue about raid... Probably much slower to rewrite that data over backup than mdd1963's solution, but due to computers age I think main issue is about 1) money or 2) program(s) of industrial nature whose lifespan/something would require lots of new programming done.
B) Repeat: please do check rar (or some other program that does one file but doesn't compress your backup data), I'd like to hear if it's faster - I bet it will be, since you won't be creating complex file structures to the backup-copy, just few files. Also, rar(or whatever) can "update" the backup w/o touching files IF the files haven't changed. So maybe don't need to copy whole 70Gb, but only files that have changed meanwhile ?
C) Edit: Did a small RAR test, so 600+ files in software encrypted drive, windows 7, also old computer but usb 3.0. Times:
1: 7 min 30 sec = Plain Copy+Paste the directory to usb stick,
2: 5 min 15 sec (+1 min 30sec used in RAR) = Rar'd that directory to same "at work" HDD first (1.5 minutes), then Copy+Paste that one rar file to the usb stick: 5 min 15 sec (computer slowed a bit while creating rar, was doing other stuff though - using ctrl+alt+del one could put the rar program to one core while doing other stuff with other cores ?).
2.1: Added (changed) the item I was rar'ing (I already had the rar in encrypted HDD, selected add/write over changed or added files), added 2Gb stuff to original directory. Didn't really time, but was rather fast.
I expect with 70Gb lots files/directories RAR'ing w/o compressing file copy to be much better improvement than my about 450 to 315 seconds timing, note I was copying only 615 files against copying 1 file. Also, if you can keep that backup70Gb.rar-file at (work computer) and add/change only changed/added files that part shouldn't take too long. Used: winrar with no compression, hardware has dual-channel 2x4Gb memory, software encrypted 1Tb drive, usb3.0, 4-core 3.0GHz'ish machine. Windows 7 in bit faster drive (not encrypted) alone (none SSD's, well, usb drive but meh). Just bought a "slow" ssd so moving to win10...
Actual Chain of Events...Hmm.RAID 1 is not the solution for this. Not even a little bit.
Please describe the actual chain of events. In as much detail as you can.
We can then devise a solution that works with your ancient hardware.
The main prob is 200S. No kidding.Reading from slow drives and writing to slow drives rivals watching paint dry...in the winter....!
Spend ~$200, get a pair of 1 TB Crucial MX500 drives, one for your source, another in a USB 3.0 adapter at least. Consider getting an Icy Dock5.25" front bay or two (one for work, one for home) that holds 2 or 4 of the 2.5" drives...you can copy quickly at work to get the heck out, take the drive with you, and copy to slower media later at your leisure while you watch Star Trek TNG reruns...
With both fast source and destination media, your times should be trimmed considerably...from 2 hours down to under 30 min, I'd guess/hope...
The problem is that I need to do it during daytime and concerning better hardware you mentioned in a link, I tried to use something like this to obtain usb 3.0 but the only thing I got after Windows is loaded with such kind of card was the sign - This device can perform faster, so...
It's my own. I've got a little cleaning business in hard times(((Is this your computer you use for work, or a computer owned by a company you work for? I am all in favor of helping speeding up this process, but not of putting money into a computer that isn't yours.
I'm looking for an upgrade during a month or two. With an SSD aboard this RIG, the reading - wrighting time was more than acceptable, but SSD smoked itself several weeks ago and I forced to use an old SATA2 drive for archiving. Now, with the helf of this forum, I make one big archive and it reduces time to almost an hour. With an SSD it was about 40 minutes. Lunch abd Coffee. No waste of time/ The CPU and components are enough for my objectives. Games I play are old, programs also, It's (like my netbook) enough for me. I was looking for a good advice and, i suppose, the best of 'em is to make one big file instead of many tiny photoes and txts. Thanks.Copying data to any 5400 RPM external drive is going to be slow, no matter if it is connected via USB 2 or 3.
You can put in a 250-500 GB SATA SSD ($50-$65?)into a USB 3.0 enclosure, and one can at least eliminate the destination drive being your obvious bottleneck.
If copying from a spinning drive, now the source drive is the limit. SATA2 (Core2 days) speed limits are ~250 MB/sec, not that that would ever come into play with any spinning drives. Again, a clone to a 500 GB SSD for another $65 would go a LONG way to now making the rest of the system the slow point, where as now the storage (source and destination) almost certainly is.
My SATA 2 internal Drive is 7400 according AIDA64Copying data to any 5400 RPM external drive is going to be slow, no matter if it is connected via USB 2 or 3.
You can put in a 250-500 GB SATA SSD ($50-$65?)into a USB 3.0 enclosure, and one can at least eliminate the destination drive being your obvious bottleneck.
If copying from a spinning drive, now the source drive is the limit. SATA2 (Core2 days) speed limits are ~250 MB/sec, not that that would ever come into play with any spinning drives. Again, a clone to a 500 GB SSD for another $65 would go a LONG way to now making the rest of the system the slow point, where as now the storage (source and destination) almost certainly is.
It matters bacause I cannot use PC during the writing process, but i sometimes need to, that's why I sometimes use netbook to continue without big delay. Even client database is hard to open during archiving. That's the point. When my SSD was alive I could easily work with this copy making in a background process. That startled me when I opened this topic.If you are doing this to archive something, why does it matter when you run it? It will copy over if you are there watching it or not. It also sounds like you are copying every file no matter if it was changed or not, do a copy of only new or changed files.
If you are doing this as a business, cost to get faster equipment should simply be part of the business. If you spend 2 hours a day watching this, you are wasting 2 hours of production time.
Or buy a cheap used computer dedicated to the file copy so you don't lock up your main system. A used system with USB 3 you can find for maybe $100 if you don't care much about the CPU in it. Even laptops with USB 3 are around in the $100 range.
What kind of programs you can advise me to use for copying???What utility / app are you using? Are you copying many small files, or a few large ones? 10mbytes/sec is not that bad for 10-years old machine...