| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Sicode
Apprentice
67 Posts |
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6718 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 27 2011 : 10:21:56 AM
|
| USB 3.0 is backwards compatible with previous generations of USB. |
 |
|
|
Sicode
Apprentice
67 Posts |
Posted - Sep 01 2011 : 5:45:05 PM
|
With respect to speed - i.e
:D |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6718 Posts |
Posted - Sep 03 2011 : 10:23:06 AM
|
Well, then upgrade to USB 3.  Such is the march of technology.
It's going to be a while before there are peripherals around that really take advantage of USB 3.0 anyway. Only the fastest SSDs can come close to saturating a USB 3.0 link. |
|
|
|
Sicode
Apprentice
67 Posts |
Posted - Oct 20 2011 : 3:37:19 PM
|
Alright
Everybody wants speed.
|
|
|
|
brianonyango2008
Apprentece
Kenya
5 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2011 : 03:45:42 AM
|
| Wow I was just reading about the USB 3.0 and I was very impressed. I cant imagine the ability of copying a high definition movie from a USB storage drive in about 80 seconds instead of the 15 minutes it takes with USB 2.0. It is so awesome my friends. |
http://brainverse-learning.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
pebe
Nobel Prize Winner
United Kingdom
1078 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2011 : 07:30:34 AM
|
Copying time from a USB storage device will depend on the 'read' speed of the device.
I doubt if it can be done in 80 seconds. |
|
|
|
wasssup1990
Nobel Prize Winner
A Land Down Under
2261 Posts |
Posted - Nov 08 2011 : 08:04:32 AM
|
I found a little free time and I decided to do some calculations on this. After doing these calculations I think it is possible to transfer the movie in 80 seconds between NAND-Flash mass-storage devices or a performance oriented conventional, mechanical hard-disk configuration like RAID.
8/11/2011
*** Time to transfer a HD Blu-ray movie ***
Movie example:
Terminator Salvation:
45(GB) = 46,080(MB) = 47,185,920(kB) = 48,318,382,080(B) = 386,547,056,640(b)
Disc Capacities (reference only):
Blu-ray Single-Layer 25GB
Blu-ray Dual-Layer 50GB
USB specifications:
USB 1.0 max theoretical bandwidth is 12(Mb/s) = 12e6(b/s)
USB 2.0 max theoretical bandwidth is 480(Mb/s) = 48e7(b/s)
USB 3.0 max theoretical bandwidth is 5(Gb/s) = 5e9(b/s)
Calculations:
USB 1.0 time = 386,547,056,640(b) / 12e6(b/s) = 32,212.25472(s)
USB 2.0 time = 386,547,056,640(b) / 48e7(b/s) = 805.306368(s)
USB 3.0 time = 386,547,056,640(b) / 5e9(b/s) = 77.309411328(s)
Assumptions:
Data-rate must average out to the "max theoretical bandwidth" per specification
over the duration of movie data transfer.
Findings:
It would take about 77 seconds to transfer Terminator Salvation over USB 3.0.
Questions:
Is this speed achievable?
With our current mass-storage mediums it is possible to achieve, given the
mediums transfering to/from can meet or exceed the bandwidth of USB 3.0.
Furthermore, for this movie we are including the entire disc's capacity used,
however only approximately 60% of this is used for the movie itself and the rest
is special features content.
Special note:
Peak transfer speeds would top 5(Gb/s) between endpoints because the USB buffers
can run at full speed, as they are designed to. Further down the hardware
abstraction layers we would need all layers to be running at >= 5(Gb/s)
bandwidth to saturate USB 3.0s bandwidth.
|
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. |
Edited by - wasssup1990 on Nov 08 2011 09:29:56 AM |
|
|
|
Sicode
Apprentice
67 Posts |
Posted - Mar 01 2012 : 01:39:13 AM
|
Although this is good, people (particularly students ) will abuse it.
Under few minutes a student can steal and copy another students work or project. lol
Not just that, a lot of crazy things will follow, and everywhere. (Of course its good supersedes the bad |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6718 Posts |
Posted - Mar 03 2012 : 10:37:31 AM
|
| Existing USB can do that as well. I don't even understand why "abuse" would factor into any discussion of USB. Maybe we should be worried about people "abusing" SATA, SCSI, Firewire and Bluetooth as well? |
|
|
|
Sicode
Apprentice
67 Posts |
Posted - Mar 27 2012 : 05:31:31 AM
|
"Abuse" I was actually talking about 'stealth' considering speed, with the latest stuff.
And it is a lot more convenient using USB devices than bluetooth devices. You have to consider distance here. |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6718 Posts |
Posted - Mar 31 2012 : 10:35:17 AM
|
Seems like the hammer argument there. Hammers can be used to build houses or crush skulls. So hammers are dangerous because they can crush skulls and are thus open to abuse.
It probably only takes a few seconds to steal a students work anyway with any spec of USB, since data files (unless multimedia) are very small and always have been.
Also, what student lab has USB ports enabled?! What an awesome way to leave the network vulnerable. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
5GB/sec USB 3.0
