FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 00:38

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Clonezilla speeds
PostPosted: 09 May 2017, 22:59 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Right now I'm cloning PCLinuxOS installed already on a 64 GB Kingston Data Traveller 101 G2 2.0 stick (which is discontinued, Kingston told me in chat this aft), to a 3.0 Kingston Data Traveller 101 G4 126 GB stick (Amazon says 128, but Clonezilla says 126), and it's taking FIVE MINUTES.

I remember doing the same but the target was a San Cruzer retractable 64 GB 2.0 and it took all night.

The 3.0 stick is in a 3.0 port native to my Dell Latitude 6530, and that makes a difference. How much, I don't know yet. My objective is to test the exact same distro, newly made yesterday, on both 2.0 and 3.0 and see the diff if in a 2.0 drive (which is still most computers) versus a 3.0 drive, and my 6530 has both.

Will report results on speed running the distro in either stick, later in this or subsequent posts in this thread.


Report this post
Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Clonezilla speeds
PostPosted: 10 May 2017, 05:21 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2015, 16:03
Posts: 1831
Sorry for the delay, here's my report.

As noted above, I used the G2 and cloned it to a G4, then tested for speed.

Program operation (i.e., navigating menus, calling up programs, downloading upates, etc) are about the same.
When you copy files, same.

I did this by using the SAME 3.0 port for both sticks, to see what difference it made. 1GB folder of a bunch of smaller files copied instantly with either stick. That makes sense, as if there's enough RAMM the machine will just copy it to RAMM and then to the stick.

The reviews say that you see the difference in larger files, and that the differential in speed diminishes the more files you have, i.e., a lot of 100MB files totalling 1GB will copy about the same, versus a single 1GB file, which allegedly is faster with the G4.

My concern with the G4 is that I already lost one to write protect. That is a defense mechanism the company (any company who makes a flash drive, not merely Kingston) builds into the stick, so that if sectors are starting to go bad, it will halt your ability to write. Read is still fine. So that ends up meaning you use the sticks to archive, not edit and transport.

My G4 that went bad was within 9GB of being filled up, was the same as the stick used in this test. It had all my brainoutdotnet data on it, so I was miffed. I've never had that problem with the 2.0 sticks, so suspect the faster speed is the cause of the eventual failure at write. I don't think speed matters as much to me as the ability to keep writing.


Report this post
Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited