4 Gb is better than 8 GB

Message

indyram · #1 Post by **indyram** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:40 am

As we like the convenience of running programs from

flash drives we want to have larger and larger

capacity drives so that we can run more

programs and carry larger amount of data.

Right now 16 GB FDs are available

for a reasonable price. Larger capacity ones maybe

good for transporting larger files and greater amount

of data. But they are not good for running programs.

I had 4 GB drive and now I have 8 GB drive

I find the programs from the larger capacity drive

run slower, especially the portable Firefox browser.

Perhaps 4 GB is the maximum size for running programs

I wonder what is the experience of others

Indy Ram

ashghost · #2 Post by **ashghost** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:23 am

Different flash drives offer different read/write speeds. I doubt that the reduced speed you're experiencing is purely due to the capacity of the drive.

I'm no expert, so anyone else is welcome to either back me up or prove me wrong.

donald · #3 Post by **donald** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:44 am

ashghost is right but

are you using a true 2.0 usb port?

larger flash drives require more power this means a hub with no external power and or a underpowered port can't run a large flash drive at full speed or sometimes at all (a problem on many computers in my experience) usually true full powered 2.0 ports are in short supply and are usually in the back on bargain pc's

my older flash drives which support 1.1 usb operate on less power and run faster on keyboard ports and usb power only hubs

a lot of better flash drives are much more expensive and you might want to look for articles on read write speeds before buying a expensive larger drive try http://www.everythingusb.com/ for articles

a few flash drives to watch include the atv turbo, ocz lightning, and the pocket rocket along with many more

another important possible problem is drivers
if you are allowing your host computer to use generic drivers this may slow you down as they could be out of date or not friendly to your flash drive I haven't bothered using such a driver but I have heard it mentioned

indyram · #4 Post by **indyram** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:16 am

I am using sandisk cruzer micro 4 and 8 GB

They are USB 2.0

The USB port are 2.0 and the FDs are directly plugged into USB port

In both I have uninstalled the U3 option

I hope someone who has both 4 and 8 GB FDs would comment on this issue

Thanks

Indy Ram

pms · #5 Post by **pms** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:01 am

I have the 2GB and 8GB versions of the Titanium Sandisk Cruzer drives. I copied the same batch of programs over to the 8GB when I got it, and I haven't noticed any difference in speed or had any performance issues at all.
Very happy with it.

At the moment both are formatted as FAT, but I'm thinking about re-doing it as NTFS. Apparently that's supposed to be faster. Has anyone any thoughts on that?

Jarte Guy · #6 Post by **Jarte Guy** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:44 pm

At the moment both are formatted as FAT, but I'm thinking about re-doing it as NTFS. Apparently that's supposed to be faster. Has anyone any thoughts on that?

NTFS does have advantages over FAT, but bear in mind that files on an NTFS drive are not fully portable between Vista machines. If you create/edit files on your NTFS flash drive using computer A and then plug the drive into Vista computer B, then those files will be read-only while you are on B. The only way to get around the problem is to 1) change the file permissions every time you plug the drive into a different Vista machine, 2) turn off UAC on your Vista machines, or 3) stick with FAT32.

m^(2) · #7 Post by **m^(2)** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:49 pm

Jarte Guy wrote:
At the moment both are formatted as FAT, but I'm thinking about re-doing it as NTFS. Apparently that's supposed to be faster. Has anyone any thoughts on that?
NTFS does have advantages over FAT, but bear in mind that files on an NTFS drive are not fully portable between Vista machines. If you create/edit files on your NTFS flash drive using computer A and then plug the drive into Vista computer B, then those files will be read-only while you are on B. The only way to get around the problem is to 1) change the file permissions every time you plug the drive into a different Vista machine, 2) turn off UAC on your Vista machines, or 3) stick with FAT32.

4) Install XP.

How is it if you create a file on a Vista machine and then open in a different OS?

Jarte Guy · #8 Post by **Jarte Guy** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:02 pm

How is it if you create a file on a Vista machine and then open in a different OS?

Taking your files from Vista to XP (or below) is fine since XP doesn't worry about file permissions unless you set it up to do so. The flash drive file permissions problem is a result of Vista's aggressive new security measures.

Disabling UAC solves the problem, but then you lose Vista's other new security measures as well. I'm hoping Microsoft will provide a solution to the issue in Windows 7, but I'm not holding my breath.

ashghost · #9 Post by **ashghost** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

I have UAC enable on my laptop and desktop, just tried this out (formatted an old USB flash drive to NTFS and saved some files to it), and the files are not read-only for me. I used the laptop to modify files that had been created on my desktop, then modified those same files again with my desktop.

I don't believe that I've changed UAC settings in any significant way.

I was going to test whether you could get around this by enabling sharing on the NTFS-formatted USB drive, then setting permissions to allow full control to everyone I had problems sharing files across my network until I figured out to do that. Unfortunately, I guess I can't test that (though I don't know why). If you're still having problems, Jarte Guy, perhaps you should try enabling sharing and full permissions then report back.

justsky · #10 Post by **justsky** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:18 pm

I am no expert but I offer my observations taken after a great deal of testing.

In general, larger drives are slower. The best evidence for this is the fact that Hwang's Law failed this year after holding for eight years straight. The reason it failed is the growing gulf between capacity and speed. Manufacturers have backed off on density research to focus on speed.

I have tested many brands of thumb drives in a range of environments. I will leave things general here to avoid detail overload and we will assume all things equal and consistent. I have a set of nearly 61,000 files (3.4GB) that vary widely in size. I have moved these files on and off these drives in three patterns, namely write, read, and read while writing. By a healthy margin the Lexar 4GB Lightning is the fastest I have used and that is reflected in the high price. The 8GB Lightning is noticably slower. I have also found that Vista is faster than XP. Vista can write the file set in just under an hour and a half. It is interesting that Linux (Ubuntu 8.10) writes the same file set in about 20 minutes. The beauty of kernel mode drivers I guess.

Of course the advent of USB 3.0 next year will make all of this moot.

Jarte Guy · #11 Post by **Jarte Guy** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:43 am

Jarte Guy, perhaps you should try enabling sharing and full permissions then report back.

Good catch, ashghost! Turning on network sharing with write permissions solves the problem. Apparently, sharing is not just for networks anymore.

At the moment both are formatted as FAT, but I'm thinking about re-doing it as NTFS. Apparently that's supposed to be faster. Has anyone any thoughts on that?

Another factor is that NTFS is a journaling file system, so the file system's
own files will see a lot more write activity than would occur in the FAT
file system. This can be a potential issue down the road, if the drive receives heavy use, since flash memory cells have a limited number of write cycles in their lifespan.

hdlbob · #12 Post by **hdlbob** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:12 pm

This is my first post here, so I hope I don't violate protocol. I've been browsing around for info on flash drive speeds and I noticed the ideas about 4GB USB flash drives being faster are widespread. You may enjoy looking at the test results one guy got after looking at quite a few drives:

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/review/u ... -compared/

I also learned that the SSDs (solid state devices) with SLC flash and SATA interface are coming down in price. Some of the SSDs have much higher performance than anything you can get from USB flash according to vendor specs and customer reviews I've read.

justsky · #13 Post by **justsky** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:15 pm

Too bad the Lexar Lightning was not in his test group.

REparsed · #14 Post by **REparsed** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:01 pm

It seems, for me at least, 4GB is the sweet spot. I don't know if larger drives are slower but, if you're using all of a larger drive, the time it takes to transfer files becomes a big issue. At current USB flash drive speeds 4GB seems to be the limit of my patience when it comes to reading/writing files. For Anything larger than that I use an external HD.

Also, the Kingston HyperX seems to be the fastest currently available flash drive at 30MB/Sec read 20MB/Sec write. I'll be ordering one soon.