[clug] USB 2.0 vs Firewire CPU overhead query.

Simon Haddon simon at sibern.com.au
Thu Dec 18 07:17:30 GMT 2003

Telek, John wrote:

>Is it true that there is more CPU overhead with usb than firewire ?
>If so, why cant we have like a hardware enhaced usb that has it's own
>local memory and DMA support ???
>The reason I ask is I have noticed that my USB/FW external drive seems a
>lot quicker when I use FW as opposed to USB 2.0.
Isn't the difference in speed to do with the I/O speed of USB verses 
FW.  I thought that FW could sustain a high data throughput speed in the 
vacinity of 400Meg/sec while USB was only in the region of about 
200Meg/sec.  I could be wrong and I am spouting from my memory so who knows.

>  John
>The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it:
>(a) may be confidential and if you are not the intended recipient, any
>interference with, use, disclosure or copying of this material is
>unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>please delete it and notify the sender;
>(b) may contain personal information of the sender as defined under the
>Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).  Consent is hereby given to the recipient(s) to
>collect, hold and use such information for any reasonable purpose in the
>ordinary course of TES' business, such as responding to this e-mail, or
>forwarding or disclosing it to a third party.

More information about the linux mailing list