Hello Donald, well, I cannot tell the same here. I still think it must be related to that usb 1.0 being reported in dmesg
usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 usb1 at ehci1: USB revision 2.0 uhub1 at usb1 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 usb2 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0 uhub2 at usb2 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb3 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0 uhub3 at usb3 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb4 at uhci2: USB revision 1.0 uhub4 at usb4 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb5 at uhci3: USB revision 1.0 uhub5 at usb5 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb6 at uhci4: USB revision 1.0 uhub6 at usb6 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 usb7 at uhci5: USB revision 1.0 uhub7 at usb7 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1 I would like to find out which is the one which is reported as 2.0 and I only have three USB ports... anyway, thanks to all of you for your help T. 2010/1/19 Donald Allen <[email protected]>: > Sounds like you are already on the right track, courtesy Peter > Hansteen, so I'll simply support the direction you are going by > telling you that I back up my systems (with a home-brew scheme that > uses a combination of rsync and tar) to 7200 rpm SATA drives in USB > shoeboxes with ext2 filesystems and have done so for years running > Linux and for the last 10 months or so running OpenBSD on the same set > of hardware (an assortment of Thinkpads, a Lenovo workstation, and a > cheap HP desktop). I've had no performance problems with OpenBSD doing > backups to these drives and therefore I haven't any measurements to > quote. But I'd notice it if OpenBSD were a factor of 5 slower; it > isn't. > > /Don Allen > -- Pau
