Thanks. It's like summary for all the messages above and my actions already done. Processoe Intel Core2Quad 2600 Ghz is quite fastl for my tasks and games as I wrote earlier. Thank you once more.1. Use a backup utility that will compress the output.
That will reduce the time it takes to physically write to the drive.
2. USB3.0 will transmit data faster.
Buy a usb3.0 adapter card as well as a usb3.0 external drive.
3. Replace the system hard drive with a ssd. A ssd will read some 3x faster sequentially.
There is not a big advantage to a ssd on the output side.
4. And, I can't help but wonder if your processor might be part of the problem. $200 will buy you a cpu, motherboard and ram that is some 2x faster.
When SSD was in, it was enough and even very good. AS I remember, the process took me about 20 minutes or so. Even with USB 2.0. The system was ok for me. That's really enough. My games are Asassins Creed up to 3 and Black Flag from time to time and Dead Space 1-3. Sometimes Run FEAR 1-3. Even Mafia III and GTA 5 is playable (of cource with an SSD for swapping due to insufficient RAM. All these I can Run at very high performance rate with good fps, of course with the exception of MAFIA III and GTA5. Programs to use - Microsoft Office under Win7, the client database and that's all. This system is nice for me. I'm not young to play those new games. PC is mainly for job and rarely for games I mentioned above. I'll better go to gym then play pc. Thanks.It's not even SSD vs HDD.
It is the whole rest of the system, incl the USB 2.0 ports.
You simply have slow low powered hardware.
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.
My business in a hard times. Next to months just to endure, then I'll buy an SSD. Thanks.
My SATA 2 internal Drive is 7400 according AIDA64
Gotcha. The great thing about USB is it's convenience. The bad thing is that the market has led us to believe we can just plug a full size hard drive, copy terabytes of data, and go about our business. You have found out that this is not the case. USB (especially earlier USB) will put your system to a crawl while it waits on the USB controller to do its thing. This doesn't matter much when sending tiny commands like moving a mouse or typing on a keyboard (where you want those commands to have priority) but for large file transfers this is not ideal. Based on what you have, the best solution I have seen so far is to get a USB 3 controller. They are nice and cheap. An SSD would surely be a good idea down the road, just remember that they would be a limitation on the other side as well - that external drive is also just running a mechanical drive.It's my own. I've got a little cleaning business in hard times(((
Well-crafted script calling Microsoft' RoboCopy. Said script is called twice a week during the night.What kind of programs you can advise me to use for copying???
Thanks. Very useful.Of course there are many internal 7200 RPM drives.
My 5400 RPM comments applied to the reference of an external Passport drive.... (many/most USB externals are often 5400 RPM; if it gets power from the USB connector alone, and lacks a little external AC adapter, it's normally a 5400 RPM laptop spec drive)..
In any event, you seem to imply /confirm your transfer speeds tanked about the time you went from an SSD to a spinner? (Put a spinning drive in there anywhere, source or destination, or both, and, waiting becomes a common occurrence. Put in most any external 5400 RPM external USB drive in the process, and ... well, you are seeing the results.)
Using a different application to copy data won't materially make copying 70 GB of data to a 5400 RPM much quicker.. (Does the entire 70 GB of data need copying repeatedly? Is there a way to do smaller incremental backups daily?)
Don't know how much space you actually need.
But, when budget allows, Crucial MX500 SSDs are $65 for 500 GB..., $47 for 250 GB... These should save you many hours of time waiting...
Good luck!
Put in a second internal drive. Copy to the second internal drive at 1400. That will be MUCH faster than the USB. Then when the 1400 copy is done you can continue to use the database application as normal. Copy the second internal drive to the USB that copy can take as much time as required without impacting the primary application performance since it is already a copy.Actual Chain of Events...Hmm.
- Come to the working place at 8.00 (the hardest))))
- Actual Job.
- Around 14.00 I'm staring to copy database from Internal HDD (Sata2) to External HDD (USB 2.0) Now I'm converting info to one big 7Zip file without the compression and off I go for smoke and coffee for an 1 hour and a half))) Still not using any special programs and I've got no Xperience with any. Looking for a good program, but training and working time limits my search. Advice for any program will be of much value. Still using copypaste... The PC is not usable during copying because of much load and during archiving process I forced to use My ASUS EEEPc born in 2005 and it's only for working 'cause it's really a piece of junk. Main problem is money. I'll afford myself SSD a month later, it'll really improve the overall situation, but now it's awfull. Need to live 2 months with old internal SATA 2 HDD. Terrible.
Looks like the solution. Will try it.Put in a second internal drive. Copy to the second internal drive at 1400. That will be MUCH faster than the USB. Then when the 1400 copy is done you can continue to use the database application as normal. Copy the second internal drive to the USB that copy can take as much time as required without impacting the primary application performance since it is already a copy.
In such case, i think, if this will be faster, I simply exclude the external drive at all. Will make comy to it at my spare time, may be at night. Should try it tomorrow. Will write the feedback tomorrow. If this would be faster and I'll have two copies all the time, I think It'll come the solution till I move to SSD's. Seems like really brilliant Idea.Looks like the solution. Will try it.
Yes, that's true, but speed is now the priority. I hope I'll evade fire and flood for two months, then SSD will fix it. I'll make one SSD as an external enclosure backup through usb and another internal system C. Right now have installed another old HDD as a backup for D: DATA ARCHIVE. Copy one big file to it. Seems like more faster.The USB allows you to have an "offline" copy if you eject and power down the USB when the copy is complete. You can also carry the USB off site every day, which protects from fire, flood and theft.
Once you have made the internal copy, then speed is not an issue. The copy to external can take hours but won't interfere with any other activities.Yes, that's true, but speed is now the priority. I hope I'll evade fire and flood for two months, then SSD will fix it. I'll make one SSD as an external enclosure backup through usb and another internal system C. Right now have installed another old HDD as a backup for D: DATA ARCHIVE. Copy one big file to it. Seems like more faster.
RAID 1 is not for disconnecting one of the drives and moving it to some other system to copy from.ps.to USAfret - would be interested why not raid1 if possibility for additional HDD's ? Would slow computer too much I presume ? It's 4-core anyhow... I know mods busy and ty for all the help, but one sentence more might find people finding archive of answers more useable plus me happierI'd know a bit more than just "no".