xD transfer speed through printer to computer

Rudy Benner wrote:
>
> I decided to play around a bit with the various options, using the card
> reader ports on the Epson DX620, a couple of proper card readers, and
> using the camera as a card reader.
>
> Best results camer with a proper USB 2.0 reader, second best and well
> behind was the Epson ports, and the absolute worst was the camera.

How slow was the Epson card reader? Do you recall how large the files
were, how many there were and about how long the transfer took? For a
while I was wondering if the slow transfer through the printer was HP's
way of encouraging me to print instead of store.

> In the process I got the Xd card thoroughly messed up. Finally managed
> to get it squared away.

Yikes. Read or write errors? What did you have to do to fix it? Format the
card?

> I have never had a problem with a CF card, I cannot say the same for the
> Xd cards.

No viewfinder, xD cards, and the rather hard to use menu structure were
the only drawbacks I found for the FinePix F10.

--
Tony Sivori
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

ASAAR wrote:

> On Sun, 7 May 2006 18:06:46 -0400, Rudy Benner wrote:
>>
>> Best results camer with a proper USB 2.0 reader, second best and well
>> behind was the Epson ports, and the absolute worst was the camera.
>
> Do you know if the F10 has a real USB 2.0 High Speed port? If it
> has a USB 2.0 Full Speed port it wouldn't be any faster transferring
> files to the computer than USB 1.1 ports would.

The F10's USB is, according to the box, High Speed 2.0. The HP 2575's box
says its USB is High Speed (although it's conceivable that refers to the
rear connector only) The HP 2575 is networked to the computer by 100 MB/s
ethernet.

--
Tony Sivori
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:37:34 -0400, Tony Sivori wrote:

> > Do you know if the F10 has a real USB 2.0 High Speed port? If it
> > has a USB 2.0 Full Speed port it wouldn't be any faster transferring
> > files to the computer than USB 1.1 ports would.
>
> The F10's USB is, according to the box, High Speed 2.0. The HP 2575's box
> says its USB is High Speed (although it's conceivable that refers to the
> rear connector only) The HP 2575 is networked to the computer by 100
> MB/s ethernet.

There's a problem trying to figure out why your transfer speed is
so slow - you haven't painted a clear picture as to how all of your
devices are interconnected. It's now clear that the F10 has a High
Speed USB 2.0 port, but all that is known so far about your Abit BE7
motherboard is that it has USB 2.0 ports and one of them is
connected to a USB 1.1 hub. Are the Abit's ports all USB 2.0 High
Speed or is it possible that they are USB 2.0 Full Speed? Did you
use the HP 2575 to transfer files to the computer using both
ethernet and USB? If so, what was the transfer rate of each?
(Note: Simply stating how long the transfer took isn't very useful
unless the total size of the files for each transfer is also given).
Also, if/when the HP 2575 transferred files using its USB port, was
the USB 1.1 hub involved at all somewhere in that chain, or is the
hub connected to a totally different port on the computer? Lastly
(and this is a minor point) you said that the ethernet connection
was rated at 100 MB/s. Are you sure that shouldn't be 100 Mb/s?
It's the difference between Mega-Bytes and Mega-bits, but if you're
using it to calculate potential transfer rates, it would make a big
difference. And if the ethernet was simultaneously used for any
other purposes, such as accessing files on the internet, or if any
other computers were sharing the ethernet cable, throughput could
drop drastically. Still, one minute per photo is quite long, as I'd
expect you'd be able to transfer 200 to 400 files per minute under
ideal conditions.
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

ASAAR wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:37:34 -0400, Tony Sivori wrote:
>
>> > Do you know if the F10 has a real USB 2.0 High Speed port? If it
>> > has a USB 2.0 Full Speed port it wouldn't be any faster transferring
>> > files to the computer than USB 1.1 ports would.
>>
>> The F10's USB is, according to the box, High Speed 2.0. The HP 2575's
>> box says its USB is High Speed (although it's conceivable that refers
>> to the rear connector only) The HP 2575 is networked to the computer by
>> 100 MB/s ethernet.
>
> There's a problem trying to figure out why your transfer speed is
> so slow - you haven't painted a clear picture as to how all of your
> devices are interconnected.

That was mostly stated in the original post. Further down the thread I
trimmed it out to avoid excess quoted text. Sorry.

> It's now clear that the F10 has a High Speed USB 2.0 port, but all that
> is known so far about your Abit BE7 motherboard is that it has USB 2.0
> ports and one of them is connected to a USB 1.1 hub. Are the Abit's
> ports all USB 2.0 High Speed or is it possible that they are USB 2.0
> Full Speed?

No, they are all high speed.

> Did you use the HP 2575 to transfer files to the computer using both
> ethernet and USB?

The 2575 is connected by ethernet (through a Netgear router); using the
USB to computer connection would require unistalling the ethernet driver
installing the USB driver.

However I did try two through the printer methods, the card reader and
storage device mode (connect the camera directly to the printer's front
USB port.

> If so, what was the transfer rate of each? (Note: Simply stating how
> long the transfer took isn't very useful unless the total size of the
> files for each transfer is also given).

Here's what I said in the original post:

Using the card reader in the HP 2575, transfer to the computer is
painfully slow, about 1 minute per 1.4 MB photo (it took 18 minutes to
transfer 16 1.4 MB photos).

So I tried the DSC (USB mass storage) mode using the USB 2.0 port on the
printer (the printer is networked on 100 MB ethernet, so that shouldn't be
a bottle neck). The results were the same. 18 minutes to transfer the same
16 photos.

> Also, if/when the HP 2575 transferred files using its USB port, was the
> USB 1.1 hub involved at all somewhere in that chain, or is the hub
> connected to a totally different port on the computer?

The 1.1 hub was not involved.

> Lastly (and this is a minor point) you said that the ethernet connection
> was rated at 100 MB/s. Are you sure that shouldn't be 100 Mb/s? It's
> the difference between Mega-Bytes and Mega-bits, but if you're using it
> to calculate potential transfer rates, it would make a big difference.

You are correct. I misspoke, 100 Mb/s is the correct way to say it.

> And if the ethernet was simultaneously used for any other purposes, such
> as accessing files on the internet, or if any other computers were
> sharing the ethernet cable, throughput could drop drastically.

Not a factor, in this case.

> Still, one minute per photo is quite long, as I'd expect you'd be able
> to transfer 200 to 400 files per minute under ideal conditions.

It could be a driver issue. I'm using the HPLIP Linux driver for the
HP 2575 all in one. However, other transfers from the all in one, such as
very high resolution scans that are hundreds of megabytes in size take
place very quickly.

It could also be a kernel issue, some people had problems with some USB
devices with the early 2.6 kernel, which I am running.

I also suspect, but I am by no means certain, that the card reader in the
all in one is a self contained USB device.

The USB bug has since been exterminated in subsequent kernels. However,
I've had zero problems with USB to this point, in fact I had more trouble
on the same hardware (I multiboot) with Windows 2000. Windows liked to
blue screen on boot when I had my HP 940 Deskjet plugged into a particular
USB port, with the error, if memory serves, "IRQ equal to or less than
zero".

I'd guess my best shot for a fix, short of a complete OS upgrade, is to
update the kernel.

--
Tony Sivori
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:02:41 -0400, Tony Sivori wrote:

>> Still, one minute per photo is quite long, as I'd expect you'd be able
>> to transfer 200 to 400 files per minute under ideal conditions.
>
> It could be a driver issue. I'm using the HPLIP Linux driver for the
> HP 2575 all in one. However, other transfers from the all in one, such as
> very high resolution scans that are hundreds of megabytes in size take
> place very quickly.
>
> It could also be a kernel issue, some people had problems with some USB
> devices with the early 2.6 kernel, which I am running.

I once had an HP driver causing a similar drastic transfer
slowdown. It occurred 5 or 6 years ago when I attached a CF card
reader that used a parallel port. Prints that should have taken a
minute or two at the most were taking nearly an hour. The problem
was solved when an HP technician explained how to reinstall the HP
print driver using a hidden menu that disabled the printer's
bidirectional data transfer. The printing slowdown was now
eliminated, and the only loss was that I couldn't use the computer
to monitor the status of the printers ink cartridges. I wonder what
kind of results you'd get if you (temporarily) disconnect the HP2575
and replace it with a cheap card reader? This wouldn't necessarily
help, and could worsen the problem if the driver isn't smart enough
to stop trying to read the HP's status data. But if that gives you
fast transfers you might want to reconnect the HP2575 and attach the
card reader to your USB 1.1 hub. It wouldn't transfer files quite
as fast as if it was USB 2.0 High Speed, but your 1 minute transfers
would probably drop to only a second or two per file.

Another cause of the problem may be that the HP's driver is
stupid, not optimized for when it is just the central point in a
file transfer between its USB and ethernet ports. It may not be
adequately buffering large numbers of data blocks, before trying to
send them. For instance, if it reads a 512 byte block (I seem to
recall ethernet packets ranging from about that 386 bytes to 2k or
so) and won't read another until it has successfully transmitted
that block, it could slow down the transfer rate tremendously even
if no other device is active on that ethernet cable.
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

ASAAR wrote:
>
> I once had an HP driver causing a similar drastic transfer
> slowdown. It occurred 5 or 6 years ago when I attached a CF card reader
> that used a parallel port. Prints that should have taken a minute or
> two at the most were taking nearly an hour. The problem was solved when
> an HP technician explained how to reinstall the HP print driver using a
> hidden menu that disabled the printer's bidirectional data transfer. The
> printing slowdown was now eliminated, and the only loss was that I
> couldn't use the computer to monitor the status of the printers ink
> cartridges.

Heh, that is weired. I would have thought you needed bi-di to use the
cartridge ink level monitoring function.

> I wonder what kind of results you'd get if you (temporarily) disconnect
> the HP2575 and replace it with a cheap card reader? This wouldn't
> necessarily help, and could worsen the problem if the driver isn't smart
> enough to stop trying to read the HP's status data. But if that gives
> you fast transfers you might want to reconnect the HP2575 and attach the
> card reader to your USB 1.1 hub. It wouldn't transfer files quite as
> fast as if it was USB 2.0 High Speed, but your 1 minute transfers would
> probably drop to only a second or two per file.

I've found a workaround that is adequate until I get around to upgrading
my OS. Boot to Knoppix (a Linux Live CD) and plug in a card reader. Reads
and transfers 30 1.4 MB photos in seconds.

> Another cause of the problem may be that the HP's driver is
> stupid, not optimized for when it is just the central point in a file
> transfer between its USB and ethernet ports. It may not be adequately
> buffering large numbers of data blocks, before trying to send them. For
> instance, if it reads a 512 byte block (I seem to recall ethernet
> packets ranging from about that 386 bytes to 2k or so) and won't read
> another until it has successfully transmitted that block, it could slow
> down the transfer rate tremendously even if no other device is active on
> that ethernet cable.

That's a possibility I hadn't considered. A quick Google found this
article from Novel that shows the relation to packet size versus
throughput in ethernet (and other) networks.

http://support.novell.com/techcenter/articles/ana19960103.html

--
Tony Sivori
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

Tony Sivori wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> The trouble with USB 2.0 ports is that they are often (on older
>> computers) NOT USB 2.0 'hi-speed' ports, but rather USB 1.1 speed ports
>> that are 'USB 2.0 compatible'. Also, if you have a device on the port
>> that is USB 1.1, ALL transfers will go at the slower speed. That said,
>> your speeds are abysmal, even for USB 1.1. What are the specs on the
>> computer in use, as to RAM, Processor speed, and OS?
>
> The computer in question has an Abit BE7 mainboard which has USB 2.0 ports
> only. A USB 1.1 hub is plugged into one of the ports. It has a P4 2.4 GHz
> processor with 1 GB of ram installed. The OS is Mandrake Linux 10.1.
>

Make sure you have the most current USB drivers for this OS. The speeds
you report are well below the slowest values I have seen for any USB
device. It may also be that something is set wrong in the USB driver setup.
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

xD Cards are slow. They are bringing out new type that should be higher
speed. But you clearly have a problem there with your setup.

I have HP 8450 photosmart with probably the same card reader and it
transfers pictures quite fast from my SD x133 card. But i did notice
that i get faster transfer on my laptop from built in card reader with
integrated controller on motherboard.

You need to check the follow things.
1. Update Drivers for your printer;

2. Make sure your hard drive is correctly setup, Running at it's maximum
speed with correct cable attached and preferable on it's own ide or
serial ata channel.

3. Check usb cable to make sure it's not some cheap one. Getting quality
cables always pays off.

4. Network transfers, you can test your network speed but doing hard
drive to hard drive transfers. This should give you a rough ide how fast
the file should copy. If you notice sluggish performance. Update network
card drivers if needed. Check to make sure your hub/switch is capable of
full duplex operation and your cards detect that.

5. Test you card in another reader that you know works well. (Your
friends). Or if you have camera usb cable, try coping images directly
from that. Reformat the card when you can.


Hope this helps.

Tony Sivori wrote:
> Complete newbie here, I bought my first digital camera (Fuji FinePix F10)
> yesterday.
>
> How long should it take to transfer pictures to my computer?
>
> I've tried two methods, both through my all in one printer (HP 2575
> Photosmart) which has built in card readers and a built in USB 2.0 port.
> My computer has no front USB ports, and the back ports are in use plus
> they are inconvenient to reach.
>
> Using the card reader in the HP 2575, transfer to the computer is
> painfully slow, about 1 minute per 1.4 MB photo (it took 18 minutes to
> transfer 16 1.4 MB photos).
>
> So I tried the DSC (USB mass storage) mode using the USB 2.0 port on the
> printer (the printer is networked on 100 MB ethernet, so that shouldn't be
> a bottle neck). The results were the same. 18 minutes to transfer the
> same 16 photos.
>
> Is it normal to take so long?
>
> I have available connectors on my motherboard to add front USB 2.0 ports.
> I don't mind spending the money to add front USB ports if it will be a lot
> faster to connect direct to the PC.
>
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

xD Cards are slow. They are bringing out new type that should be higher
speed. But you clearly have a problem there with your setup.

I have HP 8450 photosmart with probably the same card reader and it
transfers pictures quite fast from my SD x133 card. But i did notice
that i get faster transfer on my laptop from built in card reader.

You need to check the follow things.
1. Update Drivers for your printer;

2. Make sure your hard drive is correctly setup, Running at it's maximum
speed with correct cable attached and preferable on it's own ide or
serial ata channel.

3. Check usb cable to make sure it's not some cheap one. Getting quality
cables always pays off.

4. Network transfers, you can test your network speed but doing hard
drive to hard drive transfers. This should give you a rough ide how fast
the file should copy. If you notice sluggish performance. Update network
card drivers if needed. Check to make sure your hub/switch is capable of
full duplex operation and your cards detect that.

5. Test you card in another reader that you know works well. (Your
friends). Or if you have camera usb cable, try coping images directly
from that. Reformat the card when you can.

Also, check that your anti virus software isn't doing it's job TOO well
and scanning all the pics while transferring.


Hope this helps.


Tony Sivori wrote:
> Complete newbie here, I bought my first digital camera (Fuji FinePix F10)
> yesterday.
>
> How long should it take to transfer pictures to my computer?
>
> I've tried two methods, both through my all in one printer (HP 2575
> Photosmart) which has built in card readers and a built in USB 2.0 port.
> My computer has no front USB ports, and the back ports are in use plus
> they are inconvenient to reach.
>
> Using the card reader in the HP 2575, transfer to the computer is
> painfully slow, about 1 minute per 1.4 MB photo (it took 18 minutes to
> transfer 16 1.4 MB photos).
>
> So I tried the DSC (USB mass storage) mode using the USB 2.0 port on the
> printer (the printer is networked on 100 MB ethernet, so that shouldn't be
> a bottle neck). The results were the same. 18 minutes to transfer the
> same 16 photos.
>
> Is it normal to take so long?
>
> I have available connectors on my motherboard to add front USB 2.0 ports.
> I don't mind spending the money to add front USB ports if it will be a lot
> faster to connect direct to the PC.
>
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer 

xD Cards are slow. They are bringing out new type that should be higher
speed. But you clearly have a problem there with your setup.

I have HP 8450 photosmart with probably the same card reader and it
transfers pictures quite fast from my SD x133 card. But i did notice
that i get faster transfer on my laptop from built in card reader.

You need to check the follow things.
1. Update Drivers for your printer;

2. Make sure your hard drive is correctly setup, Running at it's maximum
speed with correct cable attached and preferable on it's own ide or
serial ata channel.

3. Check usb cable to make sure it's not some cheap one. Getting quality
cables always pays off.

4. Network transfers, you can test your network speed but doing hard
drive to hard drive transfers. This should give you a rough ide how fast
the file should copy. If you notice sluggish performance. Update network
card drivers if needed. Check to make sure your hub/switch is capable of
full duplex operation and your cards detect that. (iptraf for traffic
monitoring)

5. Test you card in another reader that you know works well. (Your
friends). Or if you have camera usb cable, try coping images directly
from that. Reformat the card when you can.

I see you are running linux. If you compiled the kernel yourself for
that system then you should know what you have of course. But if you
haven't or it was your first time you might have issues there.

Hope this helps.
 >> Stay informed about: xD transfer speed through printer to computer