Why do flash drive transfer speeds nosedive so hard as time passes?

going well so far

Attached: 2019-09-11 16_27_13.png (443x277, 9K)

Full buffers?
Cache replacement?

mine is flat, it's iso file / movie. it goes up and down when copying music/ pictures (small size files)

What I said applies mostly to old USB 2.0 flash drives.

Nah, still happens with USB 3 drives if they're cheap as fuck.

still going well

Attached: 2019-09-11 16_31_38.png (446x279, 10K)

Well, my point was that the OS doesn't show you the real speed of the drive. If you have a good and fast flash drive then it'll look legit, if you have old slow flash drive, you'll get a sudden slow down near the end and that's because that's the real speed of the drive. I don't know why this is set up this way by default. It was driving me crazy (and I've got USB2.0 drive cuz I use it for Ps2 games) but it can be fixed, at least on Linux

Just wished to say great taste, OP.

A lot of filesystem drivers will "mask" the terrible performance of flash drives and other slow devices by caching writes to memory and then slowly trickling them to the actual device when you're not paying attention.
Some devices that aren't so shit will have their own DRAM built-in and do the same thing, just on the memory controller level.

This is why you need to eject safely, if the write lamp is still blinking, it's still not finished writing everything.

Most USB 3 flash drives I've seen have sub-2.0 write speeds and only advertise max read.
This applies to all but the most expensive models and it's a load of crap.
I would absolutely love if some website out there had a massive chart of speed tests for flash drives.

it finished strong

Gotta pay the big bucks for decent performing flash drives sadly.

Attached: flashdrive.webm (440x276, 466K)

>I would absolutely love if some website out there had a massive chart of speed tests for flash drives.
This would be great. Why has this not been done?

Well thanks for the update on your usb drive lol

Attached: wut.jpg (550x550, 26K)

just proving it's not a flash drive problem, it's a you buying cheap shit problem.

Userbenchmark has a section for USB drives, it's not good but it's the only one I have ever found

thanks for not telling us what it is

I have a 10+ year old 1GB flash drive on which I have stored some images as a backup for a backup. A while ago I checked the drive and found it empty.

Do all old flash drives deteriorate like that?

Attached: 800b672d-1ddd-4096-abac-99597533af5d_1.6eab622446040e4528e480c593adb464.jpg (450x450, 27K)

SDCZ880-128G

Not even all that expensive, though obviously higher priced than the cheapest options out here.

Thanks for larping with an ssd

lmao it's a $45 flash drive for 128GB.

Sure you can get a cheap shit one for $15-20, but obviously the performance is vastly different.

Shitty drives. My microcenter drives/cards typically sustain ~75MB/s and my Samsung sad cards are a bit higher, about 90.

>larping with an ssd
Looks like a flash drive to me...

Attached: 2019-09-11 16.53.08.jpg (2859x1835, 804K)

>USB 3.0 has a dedicated header on motherboard
>literally it's own connector not even close to USB 2
>connect cases front panel USB 3.0 to mobo header
>connect USB 3.0 storage device to the said front panel USB 3.0 port
>"Device can perform faster when connected to USB 3.0"
fucking dumb shit what the fuck how is this possible
then once in a blue moon the same port with the same device shows as connected to USB 3.0 yet still the speeds are like 100mbps, but I know it's the shitty SanDisk drive

My old SD card from like 2006 still holds the data I put on it.

Yes. They need to be powered from time to time.

It is a SSD flash drive, it has a more complex internal controller than your average flash based memory.

Thanks for these results, I did not know you could get SSD flash drives for this little money, really impressive stuff.

it's a fucking zip disquette

happens to me all the time, wish I knew why it fucking happens.

Nigger there is no fucking way a flash drive does 300MB/s, you are full of shit and a larping asshat

Lmfao retard, just look up the specs of it

Ever notice how that shit heats up real fast? That is why.

I had a very good USB 3.0 flash drive that maxed at 130mb/s.
Something happened and now it reaches 5-8mb/s on all computers.
Is it ded Jim?

yep

Attached: 1479959674507.jpg (840x840, 35K)

This is literally the best case scenario for a file transfer, one giant file.

Okay lets try with a random season of Anime like OPs transfer

Attached: 2019-09-11 19_59_22.png (448x280, 10K)

Hmm, even faster than the single large file "best case scenario"

Attached: 2019-09-11 20_01_12.png (439x278, 9K)

underrated

>I don't know why this is set up this way by default.
Because it shows the actual transfer speed, overall, not your autistic interpretation.

Drops happen when the drive has to write a lot of files really fast, not a bunch of video files in a folder. Try thousands of pictures in a folder and you'll see a substantial drop.

now try it with 20GB of images you fuckhead

That's not what the OP is trying, fuck heads

I'm not really following this thread, just pointing out that copying one large video file or 10 video files is not going to be different.

I dont have a 20GB image archive, but i've got ~4200 images in my pictures backup folder. about 2.2GB.

Attached: 2019-09-11 21_28_42.png (441x276, 9K)

>you'll see a substantial drop
>4200 images
>no substantial drop
hmmmmm

Attached: 1479848924098.jpg (950x720, 266K)

I'm gonna bet that where you're copying those files FROM is an SSD.
A lot of stupid people don't understand that copying speed isn't just a function of the device you're writing to, it's also a function of what you're reading from.
On a source drive with a noticeable seek penalty (read: a hard disk), performance dives massively as it has to seek to the next file, or the file is fragmented.
Jow Forumsentoomen are poor in the main, so cheap, slow flash drives/SSDs and shitty Toshiba 5400 RPM hard disks are pretty standard equipment around here.
TL;DR they're in no position to judge - or even test correctly - the performance of any device outside of the sub-$20 gulags they inhabit. They just have too many bottlenecks elsewhere in their systems.

The best flash drive is a cheap m.2 b key ssd in a small chassis, change my mind. It's expensive but you get speed, capacity, and decent flash memory. Plus if you're willing to pay more you can improve all these metrics. You can also partition it as many ways as you want if you, say, want to run multiple OS's on USB and switch between them. Using usb 10gbps or even usb 3.0 (which will be saturated) all OS operations should be fast as fuck, particularly the most important: small random writes and reads.

>I'm gonna bet that where you're copying those files FROM is an SSD.
Well duh, i'm testing the write performance of the SSD, not the random read performance of my HDD.

The OPs performance isn't because of that either, it's because it's a shit flash drive.

>of the SSD
flashdrive w/ SSD controller rather.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at, user.
So many people were having goes at your results because they have shit hardware and don't know any better.

You're a complete retard. If deterioration was a thing, the whole filesystem would have been trashed, you wouldn't have noticed by "all the files are gone".

Christ remove winbabbies from this board.

not bad for a drive I've had since 2012

Attached: NeIlQXX.png (449x287, 9K)

You are the retard lol

He literally said a 1GB flash drive and that he lost his files because the drive was empty. There is no filesystem involved. What are you even on about?

And yes, on NAND Flash there is a thing called retention for a programmed state, your files can be lost if the device is not powered for a very long time. Don't talk about things you don't know anything about.

TRIM, are you using a usb adaptor?

What flash drive

See

Gotta love how Windows file copy will just tank in the last few percent when copying multiple files simultaneously. Goes to near 0 or just a few KB/S forever and then, MAGIC, done.

Your best bet is a decent USB3.1/SS capable external 2.5" HDD or build your own SSD enclosure.

If it's copying to an external drive, it's probably flushing the write cache.
You can't precisely "disable" write caching - but you can make sure it's flushed as the last step in (say) a copy dialog.
Either way, the user is safe to pull the medium once the dialog closes.

all of these

you retarded

Attached: .png (1223x1107, 838K)

How did you record that window to a webm file?

because it's using the cache of the drive user
you would rather have it be slower all the time?
it uses cache so writing smaller amounts to drive is very quick, and even bigger things get done faster using it
it's not like it's lying to you or anything
why does it drive you crazy? especially when you understand why?

Probably has a M.2 drive inside, what many idiots don't know is that you can buy an MX500 M.2 SSD and put it inside an USB 3.1 enclosure for cheaper than a flash drive while also performing better. Only downside is its gonna be a little bulky

like an m.2 ssd with a usb adapter? it does sound like an ideal flash drive desu, do they make them with their own proper form or is it a diy thing?

ah, I should have read the thread before replying
where do you get USB 3.1 enclosures? this sounds pretty nice

>solid state flash drive
As opposed to a mechanical flash drive?

Can confirm, works great.

Attached: 20190612_165130.jpg (4032x3024, 3.77M)

>uses Winblows
>wonders why it gets slow over time

stop buying trashy flashdrives

SSDs are so cheap nowadays you can just get one of these and put them in an enclosure.

>I use arch btw

>128GB flash drive
This probably won't happen unless you use USB 2.0 flash drive and and smaller capacity.

You need to mention CPU penalty as well at this point.
I use Micro SD card class 4 to transfer files, and I get constant speed of 3.9 to 4.1 MB/sec, regardless of source device, and USB protocol.

>You can also partition it as many ways as you want if you
Windows can't detect more than the first partition.

>for a very long time
How long?

>TRIM
I have several SD cards, and OLD USB drives.
How do I use that on linux? do I need the SD cards to connect directly or can I use adapter?

>Your best bet is a decent USB3.1/SS capable external 2.5" HDD or build your own SSD enclosure.
Why would you use SSD as flash drive?

Too many factors to consider, could be as little as a few months to 10 years depending on the quality of the SSD, it's operational temperatures etc

You definitely do not want to store sensitive data on an SSD that you don't regularly power on.

imagine spending more than $10 (including shipping) on a flash drive

>there is no filesystem involved

Attached: 1531708365106.jpg (900x1200, 204K)

Because you touch yourself at night

File system instructions are controlled by the controller, it is not part of the NAND flash memory. So yes, data can be lost due to retention, but it will not effect the file system or other operations set by the controller.

ah so what you're saying is is that the file system is stored in the balls
ic

>EXTREME PRO ULTIMATE EPIC BEST

To be fair, it destroys pretty much every other flash drive out there

What are volatile buffers and how do they make difference?

Attached: 1300720308609.jpg (472x315, 30K)

This is why you always look for SUSTAINED read/write speeds. Not just the read/write that's advertised.

That's why certain SSD's are much more expensive even though on the surface they appear to have the same speeds. The expensive ones actually maintain that speed 24/7, where as all the other drives will lose almost all of the speed as soon as the fast cache fills up.

Well it's a fact.
I know because I've done so, It's useful feature if you want to hide things in plain sight.

WebMcam probably

No, it's not, you stupid fucking chimp.
Here's what actually happened:
>hurr durr diskmgmt.msc
>hurr durr remove mount point
>hurr durr partition gone
>hurr durr im l33t
>hurr durr what am i doing i forgot
Because you never actually plugged it into another computer and saw all the volumes mount, you don't know this.
Brain damage like yours usually requires life support - but it's not a security feature.

Sorry, I can't understand your point.
Windows can't boot from partitions other than the first partition of removable USB flash drive, and can mount only the first partition.
GNU/Linux don't care.
I know because I've partitioned my 32GB USB flash drive to have puppy linux on the firs 2GB and the rest as removable storage, windows couldn't mount the second partition, and could only be detected in disk management.
To the average user that USB flash drive was 2 GB with puppy installed on it.