Finally figured it out, Yahoo Mail service turned the SPAM filter back on
my account. I turned it off years ago preferring to filter it myself in
Thunderbird at the time and now Opera Mail. Moved everything out of the
SPAM folder and back into the Inbox. Gonna have to keep an eye out for
that as I am a better judge of what I want labeled as SPAM. Dumb filters.
LOL
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:23:06 -0600, Stan Zaske <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm still not getting all my email. The reply from Greg didn't show up
except through this message or I would never have seen it.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:57:53 -0600, Anthony Q. Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
This is indeed curious....I saw this same thing on the old mobo, so I
don't think that's the issue.
As for caching, that's an idea. But would that not imply that whatever
runs second would benefit more than what runs first (so that they
caching can happen)?
On 1/29/2011 10:26 AM, Greg Sevart wrote:
USB 3.0 has a theoretical capacity of 5.0gb/s, while SATA 3gb/s
is...just
that. However, there's no magnetic-based storage that can even come
close to
3gb/s, so I suspect whatever you're seeing is as a result of caching or
something like that. USB is also far more processor intensive and has
a lot
more overhead, so all else being equal, if you can't saturate SATA,
native
SATA will be faster.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [H] USB 3.0 faster than SATA 3Gb/s on HD?
Is that right? I have a 1 TB drive in a usb3.0 enclosure running off
my
mobo.
Using CrystalDiskMark, I find that the read/write performance is
faster to
a
usb 3.0 drive than to an internal drive on a SATA port. In some cases
almost a
factor of 2, but not generally.
Is that right?
How does esata compare? I currently don't have an esata enclosure
hooked
up so I can't test.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
