[clug] USB 2.0 vs Firewire CPU overhead query.

Duncan Roe duncan_roe at acslink.net.au
Sat Dec 20 00:05:50 GMT 2003

You could try running xcpustate in a corner of your screen.

That way you'd see immediately whether your CPU is busy or not.

I run it all the time - Sticky and StaysOnTop (FVWMspeak).

Cheers ... Duncan.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 08:34:29AM +1100, 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.
>   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