I agree, that is VERY slow.  Are you sure it is plugged into a USB3 port?
Some HDDs are fast at first, but then slow down after their buffers get
full (Shingled magnetic recording
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingled_magnetic_recording>), but even then
I would expect 20 - 30 MB/s transfer rates.

You may want to compress the data on the fly so you can increase the
effective transfer speed, if that is suitable for your purposes.

Jason

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:37 PM Robert Citek <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Even for a spinning disk that seems really slow, especially if it is rated
> for USB3.0.  I haven’t played with spinning disks in years, but IIRC I was
> getting 30-40 MB/s writes.
>
> This drive sounds similar to yours and is advertised at a max of 220 MB/s.
> Even half that speed would be quite good.
>
>
> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/seagate-backup-plus-fast-4tb-external-usb-3-0-portable-hard-drive-black/5127078.p?skuId=5127078
>
> Regards,
> - Robert
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:22 PM Mark Phillips <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Found the problem....I got a rotational drive, not ssd.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 12:15 PM Mark Phillips <[email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Disks benchmarks 1/2 way done.
> > >
> > > Showing
> > > Avg read 2.3 MB/sec
> > > Avg write 1.8 MB/sec
> > > Avg access time 450 msec
> > >
> > > Does this seem slow for a seagate 4tb USB 3 external drive?
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 11:53 AM Mark Phillips <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> It may be a cockpit error. The USB drive is brand new, and I assumed
> > >> formatted to vfat. It turns out it is ntfs. I reformatted the drive to
> > >> ext4, and I am running benchmarks.
> > >>
> > >> Initial results from hdparm (on a different machine - SurfacePro 4
> > >> running Ubuntu
> > >> Timing cache reads: 9598.53 MB/sec
> > >> Buffered disk reads: 6.47 MB/sec
> > >>
> > >> Waiting for disks benchmark on the target machine.
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 10:21 AM Robert Citek <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Indeed, that sounds really slow:
> > >>>
> > >>> ( 138GB * 1000MB/GB ) / (26hr * 60min/hr * 60s/min ) = 1.5 MB/s  ~ 12
> > >>> Mbps
> > >>>
> > >>> That's in the USB1.x range.  If you use USB3.0 and can get 100MB/s
> > write
> > >>> speed, you'd be done in about 6 hours.
> > >>>
> > >>> Have a look at hdparm to get some info on read/write performance of
> > your
> > >>> drive:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://linuxconfig.org/hard-drive-speed-test-using-linux-command-line-and-hdparm
> > >>>
> > >>> Good luck and let us know what you discover.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> - Robert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:48 AM Michael Ewan <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Are you using a USB3 drive and a USB3 port, the speed of the
> > interface
> > >>> is
> > >>> > what I would think of first.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:41 AM Mark Phillips <
> > >>> [email protected]>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > I have an Ubuntu 18.04 system with two drives in an lvm with one
> > >>> logical
> > >>> > > root partition. I am trying to back up the contents of the drives
> > >>> (ie /)
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > an external usb drive using rsync. It is taking a really long
> time.
> > >>> After
> > >>> > > 26 hours of continuous operation I have only transferred 138 GB
> out
> > >>> of 2+
> > >>> > > TB, so I am looking at about 16 days to complete the transfer.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > My rsync command is:
> > >>> > > sudo rsync  --no-compress --info=progress2 -avAXEWSlHh
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> --exclude={'/run','/mnt','/swapfile','/boot','/dev','/proc','/sys','/run','/mnt','/media','/lost+found','/swapfile.extended','/tmp'}
> > >>> > > / '/media/mark/Seagate Portable
> > Drive/tsunami-backups-Jul_13_17-39/'
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Any suggestions on how I can speed this up and not lose any data?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Thanks!
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Mark
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to