Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • October 01, 2016, 02:00:56 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Which is faster: copying from mounted AOMEI image or from external HD via USB 2?  (Read 660 times)

dr_andus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • Dr Andus's toolbox
    • Donate to Member
I need to copy over a few hundred Gigs of data back onto my PC's hard drive and was wondering which is faster:

  • copying from mounted AOMEI image or
  • from external HD via USB 2.0?

I'm currently copying via the mounted image, and some 200+ Gigs are predicted to be copied over in about 2 hours.

Am I correct to assume that via the AOMEI image should be faster, as it's done internally and there is less hardware, wires etc. involved, which should make it faster than external HD, USB 2.0 cable etc.?

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,251
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I dont know.
You could try figuring it out --
  • USB2 has a 60MB a second limit -- but the problem is it often only reaches ~30 maximum -- will depend on your external drive and file sizes
  • 1GB is 1,000MB ....
  • Aomei's 100GB per hour would be ~28MB.p.s. if I'm correct

I wouldnt bother starting again - would probably be about the same rate.
Tom

dr_andus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • Dr Andus's toolbox
    • Donate to Member
  • Aomei's 100GB per hour would be ~28MB.p.s. if I'm correct

Thanks. I just checked in the Dopus popup and for the AOMEI transfer it says
  • average: 11.5 MB/s
  • peak: 39.3 MB/s

I'm waiting to do another batch, so I'll do that via the USB 2.0 and compare.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 09:10:24 AM by dr_andus »

dr_andus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • Dr Andus's toolbox
    • Donate to Member
OK, this was a bit counterintuitive, but it looks like the USB 2.0 transfer was quicker for some reason:
  • average: 15.9 MB/s
  • peak: 38.6 MB/s

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,251
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
OK, this was a bit counterintuitive, but it looks like the USB 2.0 transfer was quicker for some reason:
  • average: 15.9 MB/s
  • peak: 38.6 MB/s

good to know :up:
it's possibly because Aomei is trying to get the files out of a compressed image
Tom

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,409
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
You didn't say whether the mounted image is on the same internal drive as the copying destination.  If it is then the constant head seeking of the drive is going to slow things down a lot and you'd be better off copying from the external USB drive.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,027
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
USB2 has a 60MB a second limit -- but the problem is it often only reaches ~30 maximum -- will depend on your external drive and file sizes
The raw USB2 link has a 480Mbit/s theoretical limit, yes, but because of protocol overhead you'll never ever reach that - and the (kind of) people who saw it fit to use the theoretical link limit as advertisement should be dragged out back and done with.

Theoretically one should be able to reach about 35MB/s of "interesting" bandwidth, but it's usually in the 25MB/s ballpark.
- carpe noctem

dr_andus

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 792
    • View Profile
    • Dr Andus's toolbox
    • Donate to Member
You didn't say whether the mounted image is on the same internal drive as the copying destination.  If it is then the constant head seeking of the drive is going to slow things down a lot and you'd be better off copying from the external USB drive.

Indeed, that was the case. Thanks for the explanation!