On Monday 23 April 2007, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:47 +0200, Koenraad Lelong wrote: > > John Andersen schreef: > > > On Monday 16 April 2007, Mike Adolf wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > Firewire is twice as fast as usb 1.1, but not as fast as usb 2.0 > > > > > > There is a new firewire slowly starting to appear that will > > > be about twice as fast as existing usb 2.0 (or existing firewire) > > > but I've not actually seen this in production yet. > > > > AFAIK, Firewire 2, 800Mbps does exist for years. Maybe it's becomming > > mainstream now. Or maybe there are few devices using it. > > It is often called FW-800 and it has been around a couple of years. > There are many devices using it. The first FW is called FW-400. > > BTW, FW-400 is typically faster than USB 2.0 in many uses. Especially > streaming images. On our FW-400 system, we actually get 400 MBit of data > (calculated with cameras that provide an uncompressed image size/rate). > I am not sure if the USB 2.0 speed is for the data only, or it if > includes the transmission overhead.
Sound like your unique setup yields atypical results. USB2, with proper cables (yes it does matter) outperforms Firewire 400 for bulk data transfer. I have 3 different extern chassis disk drives each with dual interfaces (fw and usb2). Transferring large file volumes across the wire is slightly faster using USB2. One of these devises if VFAT and the USB performance in windows XP exceeds Firewire. The others are ReiserFS, and used for linux only, but still USB2 beats firewire. Long backups take 40+ minutes using Firewire, the USB finishes in 34 to 36 minutes. disk will finish -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
