Timeline for Using USB 3.0 to speed up transfer between USB 2.0 devices?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 18:09 | comment | added | endolith | Wikipedia says no, the USB 2.0 signals are not translated to USB 3.0, they are just passed along, so there is still the 480 Mbit/s bandwidth limit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hub#Transaction_translator | |
| Jan 9, 2013 at 23:41 | answer | added | perennialmind | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 11:51 | answer | added | ilkyhnilyboli | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 24, 2011 at 18:38 | vote | accept | Martin | ||
| May 22, 2011 at 22:25 | answer | added | camster342 | timeline score: 30 | |
| May 21, 2011 at 8:13 | comment | added | Martin | @Brain: Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure that most motherboards contain only one or two controlllers, or at least that was the standard about 1-2 years ago. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 1:18 | comment | added | Brian | The bandwidth limit is per USB2 controller. Most motherboards these days have one controller per port. When low on ports putting your low speed devices like the mouse, keyboard and UPS on a hub leaves other devices like hard drives with a dedicated controller/port each. | |
| May 20, 2011 at 3:04 | answer | added | camster342 | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 11, 2011 at 15:37 | comment | added | TheEmpireNeverEnded | Interesting concept. @Kyle, did you get around to testing it? I'd like to know the results. | |
| May 6, 2011 at 6:41 | answer | added | MyPreciousss | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 4, 2011 at 17:11 | comment | added | Blomkvist | It's not a metaphor, it's a simile. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | Shinrai | @Blomkvist - I don't get the metaphor. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 23:17 | comment | added | Kevin Peno | @Martin, I'm sure that's the case and would continue to be so to save cost. Since the underlying hub shouldn't care what the device is, only allow it access to the BW, and since the item itself should be managing it's max speed, then in theory what I said would hold. If the bus is managing the translation (translation of what???) and the number of translators is limited, then yeah...sucks. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 23:12 | comment | added | Martin | @Kevin: There was a similar situation in the early days of USB 2.0. Some (cheaper) hubs had only one internal USB 1->2 translation unit (shared bandwidth for all usb 1 devices), others had one translator per port (unshared full bandwidth for each). | |
| May 3, 2011 at 22:47 | comment | added | Kevin Peno | Comment because I don't have facts. Each USB host is a pipe. Assuming that a sewer that is larger than it, and that sewer is not backed up, you will get full throughput. The more toilets you connect to the pipe, running at the same time in this case, the more your USB pipe fills up. Thus you can assume that, if your device actually can use the entire USB2 speed, you will be able to plug in around 5 480Mb/s devices into a USB3 controller without filling the pipe. The underlying tech has not changed in USB 3. Thus, if you plugged in 3 5Gb/s USB3 devices, you'd have the same issues. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 20:18 | comment | added | Shinrai | Oooh, interesting question. Obviously they only work at USB2.0 speeds but...yeah! I dunno! I would THINK so but I really have no clue. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 19:49 | comment | added | AndrejaKo | Related: Do I need USB3 sticks to get USB3 speed? | |
| May 3, 2011 at 19:02 | comment | added | Supercereal | I can't believe I haven't thought of this yet... I'll be benchmarking it tonight. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 18:25 | comment | added | slhck | Interesting question! Yes, you're right that the USB 2 controller shares the bandwidth between its devices. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 18:17 | history | asked | Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |