With a data transfer of 50 GB estimated 5 hours, are USB-C claimed speeds inaccurate or to blame?Disable Specific USB Ports / Restrict Data Transfer from USB PortsUSB3 HDD on an USB2 port vs thunderboltdata transfer for iPad appTransfer Data between MacsTransfer data between two Mac via USB-CConfused about USB-C transfer speeds of latest MacBook ProsUSB 3 data transfer very slow (around 8MB/sec.) - How to find the bottleneck?Transfer speed of USB-C to Lightning on latest iPad Pro 10.5USB-C Charging Speeds / Charger OutputsShould a USB Switch work with late 2018 Macbook Air

What caused Windows ME's terrible reputation?

Too many spies!

How to fit a linear model in the Bayesian way in Mathematica?

Are L-functions uniquely determined by their values at negative integers?

Variation in the spelling of word-final M

How to draw a gif with expanding circles that reveal lines connecting a non-centered point to the expanding circle using Tikz

Why do candidates not quit if they no longer have a realistic chance to win in the 2020 US presidents election

Use of "sit" instead of "est" in Virgil

Spider-Man: Far From Home - Why do they take a detour to Dorset?

Relationship between GCD, LCM and the Riemann Zeta function

Why do mean value theorems have open interval for differentiablity while closed for continuity?

What are some symbols representing peasants/oppressed persons fighting back?

Absconding a company after 1st day of joining

Will it hurt my career to work as a graphic designer in a startup for beauty and skin care?

Mistakenly modified `/bin/sh'

What is this old "lemon-squeezer" shaped pan

What is the German equivalent of 干物女 (dried fish woman)?

Can a continent naturally split into two distant parts within a week?

Was adding milk to tea started to reduce employee tea break time?

Construct a pentagon avoiding compass use

Possible isometry groups of open manifolds

Why does the Earth have a z-component at the start of the J2000 epoch?

What's the phrasal verb for carbonated drinks exploding out of the can after being shaken?

Why does a small sanhedrin have 23 judges rather than 21?



With a data transfer of 50 GB estimated 5 hours, are USB-C claimed speeds inaccurate or to blame?


Disable Specific USB Ports / Restrict Data Transfer from USB PortsUSB3 HDD on an USB2 port vs thunderboltdata transfer for iPad appTransfer Data between MacsTransfer data between two Mac via USB-CConfused about USB-C transfer speeds of latest MacBook ProsUSB 3 data transfer very slow (around 8MB/sec.) - How to find the bottleneck?Transfer speed of USB-C to Lightning on latest iPad Pro 10.5USB-C Charging Speeds / Charger OutputsShould a USB Switch work with late 2018 Macbook Air






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4















When I bought an 2017 MBP I was under the impression (from Apple and others) that USB-C was the superfast way to transfer data. It has not worked out that way and I am wondering if I misunderstood something.



I am downloading 50gb from the MBP to an external drive and it is showing a time of over 5+ hours left. Isn't this supposed to happen much more quickly???



"USB 3.1 Type-C cables offer a transfer rate of 10Gbps, which is double the transfer speed of USB 3.0 (5 Gbps)" is what one tech site states. Can someone explain what i am missing or doing wrong?



enter image description here










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

    – jmh
    Jul 6 at 15:32






  • 3





    @Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

    – bmike
    Jul 6 at 16:14






  • 1





    The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 7 at 17:23







  • 1





    Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Jul 9 at 21:08







  • 1





    @Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 10 at 5:16

















4















When I bought an 2017 MBP I was under the impression (from Apple and others) that USB-C was the superfast way to transfer data. It has not worked out that way and I am wondering if I misunderstood something.



I am downloading 50gb from the MBP to an external drive and it is showing a time of over 5+ hours left. Isn't this supposed to happen much more quickly???



"USB 3.1 Type-C cables offer a transfer rate of 10Gbps, which is double the transfer speed of USB 3.0 (5 Gbps)" is what one tech site states. Can someone explain what i am missing or doing wrong?



enter image description here










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

    – jmh
    Jul 6 at 15:32






  • 3





    @Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

    – bmike
    Jul 6 at 16:14






  • 1





    The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 7 at 17:23







  • 1





    Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Jul 9 at 21:08







  • 1





    @Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 10 at 5:16













4












4








4


1






When I bought an 2017 MBP I was under the impression (from Apple and others) that USB-C was the superfast way to transfer data. It has not worked out that way and I am wondering if I misunderstood something.



I am downloading 50gb from the MBP to an external drive and it is showing a time of over 5+ hours left. Isn't this supposed to happen much more quickly???



"USB 3.1 Type-C cables offer a transfer rate of 10Gbps, which is double the transfer speed of USB 3.0 (5 Gbps)" is what one tech site states. Can someone explain what i am missing or doing wrong?



enter image description here










share|improve this question
















When I bought an 2017 MBP I was under the impression (from Apple and others) that USB-C was the superfast way to transfer data. It has not worked out that way and I am wondering if I misunderstood something.



I am downloading 50gb from the MBP to an external drive and it is showing a time of over 5+ hours left. Isn't this supposed to happen much more quickly???



"USB 3.1 Type-C cables offer a transfer rate of 10Gbps, which is double the transfer speed of USB 3.0 (5 Gbps)" is what one tech site states. Can someone explain what i am missing or doing wrong?



enter image description here







macos usb performance data-transfer






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 6 at 17:10









IconDaemon

12.6k6 gold badges29 silver badges43 bronze badges




12.6k6 gold badges29 silver badges43 bronze badges










asked Jul 6 at 14:45









SizzleSizzle

6456 gold badges19 silver badges31 bronze badges




6456 gold badges19 silver badges31 bronze badges







  • 2





    I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

    – jmh
    Jul 6 at 15:32






  • 3





    @Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

    – bmike
    Jul 6 at 16:14






  • 1





    The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 7 at 17:23







  • 1





    Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Jul 9 at 21:08







  • 1





    @Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 10 at 5:16












  • 2





    I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

    – jmh
    Jul 6 at 15:32






  • 3





    @Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

    – bmike
    Jul 6 at 16:14






  • 1





    The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 7 at 17:23







  • 1





    Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Jul 9 at 21:08







  • 1





    @Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

    – David Schwartz
    Jul 10 at 5:16







2




2





I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

– jmh
Jul 6 at 15:32





I just noticed that the answer below includes an image from Activity monitor and in the bottom right it shows data read and write speeds. You could also get BlackMagic Speed Test from the App Store to double check your external drive read and write speeds. The app is free.

– jmh
Jul 6 at 15:32




3




3





@Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

– bmike
Jul 6 at 16:14





@Sizzle JMH has the real answer, run Black Magic and ask a follow on question with details. Rather than keeping this question morphing with 20 questions and more data a second question linked here would get you more specific help.

– bmike
Jul 6 at 16:14




1




1





The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

– David Schwartz
Jul 7 at 17:23






The limiting factor should be the speed of either the external drive or the internal drive. You should see about ten times this speed with large files. Are you transferring a large number of very small files?

– David Schwartz
Jul 7 at 17:23





1




1





Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Jul 9 at 21:08






Is this an USB 2.0 harddisk? Also lots of small files are slow.

– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Jul 9 at 21:08





1




1





@Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

– David Schwartz
Jul 10 at 5:16





@Sizzle With a large number of small files, measuring bytes per second is pretty meaningless.You're likely running into operations per second limits.

– David Schwartz
Jul 10 at 5:16










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7














The bus speed you quote is a theoretical maximum and not that the bus somehow speeds up any and all storage connected to it.



An analogy would be a 10 lane highway that’s perfectly packed with cars that drive themselves bumper to bumper in perfect coordination. You need good buffering, ideal behavior, no hiccups to reach the “specs”



In practice, there are lane changes, no cars to enter, or just everyone driving in the left lane.



I would open the Activity Monitor and look at the Disk tab. Specifically the IOPS and data rates are different constraints.



enter image description here



IO is like getting all the vehicles on and off the highway so you’ll have low transfer rates when there are lots of small delays and metadata being read from slow storage. That's on the left side and in the chart when IO is selected.



Your graph shows an IO constrained transfer, the system is spending more time locating the next group of bits to transfer, it can’t likely fill up the max transfer of the drive. Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps and most Macs can put out hundreds and NVMe ssd on recent Macs thousands of MBps and IOps.



Bandwidth is another constraint similar to the on ramps and off ramps - your sending and receiving device might be the bottleneck. That's the data read/sec on the right and shown above.



Without any specific data measurements, hopefully the high level description of what to look for and how to think of the bus speed helps you sort out if you brought too fast an expectation to devices that can’t deliver or if everything is capable of fast transfers and you have a configuration / software / hardware issue in hand to diagnose and optimize.



My hunch is the speed estimate is conservative, Finder is single threading the transfer and your bottleneck is a consumer grade external drive (HDD or slower flash storage) and you'd be able to get 60% of the max with a more efficient transfer and a fast Thunderbolt 3 type storage device attached: https://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2019/06/thunderbolt-3-enclosures-with-single-dual-quad-m-2-nvme-ssds-for-esxi.html






share|improve this answer

























  • How do i load my screenshot in here?

    – Sizzle
    Jul 6 at 15:59






  • 5





    Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

    – IconDaemon
    Jul 6 at 17:17







  • 1





    @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

    – historystamp
    Jul 6 at 22:03






  • 2





    When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

    – Mark
    Jul 7 at 0:23






  • 1





    "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

    – Mehrdad
    Jul 7 at 7:49



















3














It's your data



That variability of data rate suggests a copy of many smallish files - akin to backing up the OS files, for instance, where a typical file is as small as 30 bytes and often in the 5-100kb range.



Every file has some "write" overhead that must be done per file, regardless of the file size, such as writing the directories. And this isn't a big block transfer; it involves the physical drive hunting all over the disk, which means you're doing a lot of waiting for head traverse and for the right sector to come around.



Once you get into big files, like your videos, you will be doing steady block transfers and should start seeing much more impressive rates, certainly at least 30MB/sec. Still a far cry from USB's nameplate speed, but the limiting factor is still this physical hard drive, and a basic consumer-tier one at that.



Once, I tried to unzip a ZIP file with about 5 million rather small files on it. At the rate it was going, it was going to take over a day. So, I created a RAMdisk. It unzipped in 5 minutes. Seek time matters!






share|improve this answer
































    1














    There are many possible answers, but before I offer them - Have you actually tried to go on and start the copying process? The initial estimate is - well - just an estimate, and after the first few megabytes, it may jump down to something more appealing.



    Now - the time it takes to copy 50GB from one drive to another, is not only bound by the hardware data-transfer rate of the bus (in your case, 10GBPS or little over 1 Gigabyte a second).



    It strongly depends on the read speed of your source drive and the write speed of your target drive - if your external drive is a mechanical HDD - it won't be able to sustain writing data at the theoretical USB-C 3.1 rate.



    Then - it also depend heavily on the data you try to copy. Is is just one large file? maybe a directory hierarchy containing millions of small files? something in between?



    When copying complicated file-system subsets (directory hierarchies) from one drive to another, For one, scanning the source directory and its descendents is a process that takes time. But also creating a complicated directory structure on the target drive takes lots of time too - regardless of the size of their contents.



    In your case, I believe it is just your external hard drive. It may be a slower HDD, or it won't support the faster connection variant.



    Last, but not least - faulty or poor-quality cables sometimes cause very-slow file transfers - and in some cases, these cables can create corrupt copies of the original data on the target. So check with another cable too.



    Last -Even with a slow HDD connected via old 480MBPS USB cable, I was able to copy a full hard-drive (512GB) in just under 45 minutes - so the whole thing can simply be a hardware/cabling issue.






    share|improve this answer
































      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7














      The bus speed you quote is a theoretical maximum and not that the bus somehow speeds up any and all storage connected to it.



      An analogy would be a 10 lane highway that’s perfectly packed with cars that drive themselves bumper to bumper in perfect coordination. You need good buffering, ideal behavior, no hiccups to reach the “specs”



      In practice, there are lane changes, no cars to enter, or just everyone driving in the left lane.



      I would open the Activity Monitor and look at the Disk tab. Specifically the IOPS and data rates are different constraints.



      enter image description here



      IO is like getting all the vehicles on and off the highway so you’ll have low transfer rates when there are lots of small delays and metadata being read from slow storage. That's on the left side and in the chart when IO is selected.



      Your graph shows an IO constrained transfer, the system is spending more time locating the next group of bits to transfer, it can’t likely fill up the max transfer of the drive. Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps and most Macs can put out hundreds and NVMe ssd on recent Macs thousands of MBps and IOps.



      Bandwidth is another constraint similar to the on ramps and off ramps - your sending and receiving device might be the bottleneck. That's the data read/sec on the right and shown above.



      Without any specific data measurements, hopefully the high level description of what to look for and how to think of the bus speed helps you sort out if you brought too fast an expectation to devices that can’t deliver or if everything is capable of fast transfers and you have a configuration / software / hardware issue in hand to diagnose and optimize.



      My hunch is the speed estimate is conservative, Finder is single threading the transfer and your bottleneck is a consumer grade external drive (HDD or slower flash storage) and you'd be able to get 60% of the max with a more efficient transfer and a fast Thunderbolt 3 type storage device attached: https://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2019/06/thunderbolt-3-enclosures-with-single-dual-quad-m-2-nvme-ssds-for-esxi.html






      share|improve this answer

























      • How do i load my screenshot in here?

        – Sizzle
        Jul 6 at 15:59






      • 5





        Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

        – IconDaemon
        Jul 6 at 17:17







      • 1





        @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

        – historystamp
        Jul 6 at 22:03






      • 2





        When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

        – Mark
        Jul 7 at 0:23






      • 1





        "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

        – Mehrdad
        Jul 7 at 7:49
















      7














      The bus speed you quote is a theoretical maximum and not that the bus somehow speeds up any and all storage connected to it.



      An analogy would be a 10 lane highway that’s perfectly packed with cars that drive themselves bumper to bumper in perfect coordination. You need good buffering, ideal behavior, no hiccups to reach the “specs”



      In practice, there are lane changes, no cars to enter, or just everyone driving in the left lane.



      I would open the Activity Monitor and look at the Disk tab. Specifically the IOPS and data rates are different constraints.



      enter image description here



      IO is like getting all the vehicles on and off the highway so you’ll have low transfer rates when there are lots of small delays and metadata being read from slow storage. That's on the left side and in the chart when IO is selected.



      Your graph shows an IO constrained transfer, the system is spending more time locating the next group of bits to transfer, it can’t likely fill up the max transfer of the drive. Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps and most Macs can put out hundreds and NVMe ssd on recent Macs thousands of MBps and IOps.



      Bandwidth is another constraint similar to the on ramps and off ramps - your sending and receiving device might be the bottleneck. That's the data read/sec on the right and shown above.



      Without any specific data measurements, hopefully the high level description of what to look for and how to think of the bus speed helps you sort out if you brought too fast an expectation to devices that can’t deliver or if everything is capable of fast transfers and you have a configuration / software / hardware issue in hand to diagnose and optimize.



      My hunch is the speed estimate is conservative, Finder is single threading the transfer and your bottleneck is a consumer grade external drive (HDD or slower flash storage) and you'd be able to get 60% of the max with a more efficient transfer and a fast Thunderbolt 3 type storage device attached: https://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2019/06/thunderbolt-3-enclosures-with-single-dual-quad-m-2-nvme-ssds-for-esxi.html






      share|improve this answer

























      • How do i load my screenshot in here?

        – Sizzle
        Jul 6 at 15:59






      • 5





        Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

        – IconDaemon
        Jul 6 at 17:17







      • 1





        @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

        – historystamp
        Jul 6 at 22:03






      • 2





        When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

        – Mark
        Jul 7 at 0:23






      • 1





        "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

        – Mehrdad
        Jul 7 at 7:49














      7












      7








      7







      The bus speed you quote is a theoretical maximum and not that the bus somehow speeds up any and all storage connected to it.



      An analogy would be a 10 lane highway that’s perfectly packed with cars that drive themselves bumper to bumper in perfect coordination. You need good buffering, ideal behavior, no hiccups to reach the “specs”



      In practice, there are lane changes, no cars to enter, or just everyone driving in the left lane.



      I would open the Activity Monitor and look at the Disk tab. Specifically the IOPS and data rates are different constraints.



      enter image description here



      IO is like getting all the vehicles on and off the highway so you’ll have low transfer rates when there are lots of small delays and metadata being read from slow storage. That's on the left side and in the chart when IO is selected.



      Your graph shows an IO constrained transfer, the system is spending more time locating the next group of bits to transfer, it can’t likely fill up the max transfer of the drive. Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps and most Macs can put out hundreds and NVMe ssd on recent Macs thousands of MBps and IOps.



      Bandwidth is another constraint similar to the on ramps and off ramps - your sending and receiving device might be the bottleneck. That's the data read/sec on the right and shown above.



      Without any specific data measurements, hopefully the high level description of what to look for and how to think of the bus speed helps you sort out if you brought too fast an expectation to devices that can’t deliver or if everything is capable of fast transfers and you have a configuration / software / hardware issue in hand to diagnose and optimize.



      My hunch is the speed estimate is conservative, Finder is single threading the transfer and your bottleneck is a consumer grade external drive (HDD or slower flash storage) and you'd be able to get 60% of the max with a more efficient transfer and a fast Thunderbolt 3 type storage device attached: https://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2019/06/thunderbolt-3-enclosures-with-single-dual-quad-m-2-nvme-ssds-for-esxi.html






      share|improve this answer















      The bus speed you quote is a theoretical maximum and not that the bus somehow speeds up any and all storage connected to it.



      An analogy would be a 10 lane highway that’s perfectly packed with cars that drive themselves bumper to bumper in perfect coordination. You need good buffering, ideal behavior, no hiccups to reach the “specs”



      In practice, there are lane changes, no cars to enter, or just everyone driving in the left lane.



      I would open the Activity Monitor and look at the Disk tab. Specifically the IOPS and data rates are different constraints.



      enter image description here



      IO is like getting all the vehicles on and off the highway so you’ll have low transfer rates when there are lots of small delays and metadata being read from slow storage. That's on the left side and in the chart when IO is selected.



      Your graph shows an IO constrained transfer, the system is spending more time locating the next group of bits to transfer, it can’t likely fill up the max transfer of the drive. Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps and most Macs can put out hundreds and NVMe ssd on recent Macs thousands of MBps and IOps.



      Bandwidth is another constraint similar to the on ramps and off ramps - your sending and receiving device might be the bottleneck. That's the data read/sec on the right and shown above.



      Without any specific data measurements, hopefully the high level description of what to look for and how to think of the bus speed helps you sort out if you brought too fast an expectation to devices that can’t deliver or if everything is capable of fast transfers and you have a configuration / software / hardware issue in hand to diagnose and optimize.



      My hunch is the speed estimate is conservative, Finder is single threading the transfer and your bottleneck is a consumer grade external drive (HDD or slower flash storage) and you'd be able to get 60% of the max with a more efficient transfer and a fast Thunderbolt 3 type storage device attached: https://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2019/06/thunderbolt-3-enclosures-with-single-dual-quad-m-2-nvme-ssds-for-esxi.html







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jul 6 at 17:27

























      answered Jul 6 at 14:52









      bmikebmike

      165k46 gold badges301 silver badges645 bronze badges




      165k46 gold badges301 silver badges645 bronze badges












      • How do i load my screenshot in here?

        – Sizzle
        Jul 6 at 15:59






      • 5





        Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

        – IconDaemon
        Jul 6 at 17:17







      • 1





        @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

        – historystamp
        Jul 6 at 22:03






      • 2





        When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

        – Mark
        Jul 7 at 0:23






      • 1





        "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

        – Mehrdad
        Jul 7 at 7:49


















      • How do i load my screenshot in here?

        – Sizzle
        Jul 6 at 15:59






      • 5





        Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

        – IconDaemon
        Jul 6 at 17:17







      • 1





        @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

        – historystamp
        Jul 6 at 22:03






      • 2





        When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

        – Mark
        Jul 7 at 0:23






      • 1





        "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

        – Mehrdad
        Jul 7 at 7:49

















      How do i load my screenshot in here?

      – Sizzle
      Jul 6 at 15:59





      How do i load my screenshot in here?

      – Sizzle
      Jul 6 at 15:59




      5




      5





      Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

      – IconDaemon
      Jul 6 at 17:17






      Many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of files moved to the external disk using a Finder drag will add a lot of overhead to the process. If you're dealing with a humongous number of files, I've found that using the mv Terminal command to bypass the Finder runs very fast indeed.

      – IconDaemon
      Jul 6 at 17:17





      1




      1





      @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

      – historystamp
      Jul 6 at 22:03





      @Sizzle click on the picture icon. I click on browser. when you have selected and opened the picture, you click on add picture. It's a little messy in your original post.

      – historystamp
      Jul 6 at 22:03




      2




      2





      When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

      – Mark
      Jul 7 at 0:23





      When copying many files I would use rsync which will be faster then Finder and also if you have to stop part way through when it is rerun it does not copy over files that have already been done.

      – Mark
      Jul 7 at 0:23




      1




      1





      "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

      – Mehrdad
      Jul 7 at 7:49






      "Most consumer drives can absorb 20 MBps to 60 MBps"... sorry, am I misunderstanding this, or this this from another geological era? I saw consumer hard disks back in ~2005 achieve >20 MBps... I feel like the bare minimum you can find on any hard disk these days should be 80 MB/s?

      – Mehrdad
      Jul 7 at 7:49














      3














      It's your data



      That variability of data rate suggests a copy of many smallish files - akin to backing up the OS files, for instance, where a typical file is as small as 30 bytes and often in the 5-100kb range.



      Every file has some "write" overhead that must be done per file, regardless of the file size, such as writing the directories. And this isn't a big block transfer; it involves the physical drive hunting all over the disk, which means you're doing a lot of waiting for head traverse and for the right sector to come around.



      Once you get into big files, like your videos, you will be doing steady block transfers and should start seeing much more impressive rates, certainly at least 30MB/sec. Still a far cry from USB's nameplate speed, but the limiting factor is still this physical hard drive, and a basic consumer-tier one at that.



      Once, I tried to unzip a ZIP file with about 5 million rather small files on it. At the rate it was going, it was going to take over a day. So, I created a RAMdisk. It unzipped in 5 minutes. Seek time matters!






      share|improve this answer





























        3














        It's your data



        That variability of data rate suggests a copy of many smallish files - akin to backing up the OS files, for instance, where a typical file is as small as 30 bytes and often in the 5-100kb range.



        Every file has some "write" overhead that must be done per file, regardless of the file size, such as writing the directories. And this isn't a big block transfer; it involves the physical drive hunting all over the disk, which means you're doing a lot of waiting for head traverse and for the right sector to come around.



        Once you get into big files, like your videos, you will be doing steady block transfers and should start seeing much more impressive rates, certainly at least 30MB/sec. Still a far cry from USB's nameplate speed, but the limiting factor is still this physical hard drive, and a basic consumer-tier one at that.



        Once, I tried to unzip a ZIP file with about 5 million rather small files on it. At the rate it was going, it was going to take over a day. So, I created a RAMdisk. It unzipped in 5 minutes. Seek time matters!






        share|improve this answer



























          3












          3








          3







          It's your data



          That variability of data rate suggests a copy of many smallish files - akin to backing up the OS files, for instance, where a typical file is as small as 30 bytes and often in the 5-100kb range.



          Every file has some "write" overhead that must be done per file, regardless of the file size, such as writing the directories. And this isn't a big block transfer; it involves the physical drive hunting all over the disk, which means you're doing a lot of waiting for head traverse and for the right sector to come around.



          Once you get into big files, like your videos, you will be doing steady block transfers and should start seeing much more impressive rates, certainly at least 30MB/sec. Still a far cry from USB's nameplate speed, but the limiting factor is still this physical hard drive, and a basic consumer-tier one at that.



          Once, I tried to unzip a ZIP file with about 5 million rather small files on it. At the rate it was going, it was going to take over a day. So, I created a RAMdisk. It unzipped in 5 minutes. Seek time matters!






          share|improve this answer















          It's your data



          That variability of data rate suggests a copy of many smallish files - akin to backing up the OS files, for instance, where a typical file is as small as 30 bytes and often in the 5-100kb range.



          Every file has some "write" overhead that must be done per file, regardless of the file size, such as writing the directories. And this isn't a big block transfer; it involves the physical drive hunting all over the disk, which means you're doing a lot of waiting for head traverse and for the right sector to come around.



          Once you get into big files, like your videos, you will be doing steady block transfers and should start seeing much more impressive rates, certainly at least 30MB/sec. Still a far cry from USB's nameplate speed, but the limiting factor is still this physical hard drive, and a basic consumer-tier one at that.



          Once, I tried to unzip a ZIP file with about 5 million rather small files on it. At the rate it was going, it was going to take over a day. So, I created a RAMdisk. It unzipped in 5 minutes. Seek time matters!







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jul 7 at 11:51

























          answered Jul 7 at 11:44









          HarperHarper

          1,0725 silver badges13 bronze badges




          1,0725 silver badges13 bronze badges





















              1














              There are many possible answers, but before I offer them - Have you actually tried to go on and start the copying process? The initial estimate is - well - just an estimate, and after the first few megabytes, it may jump down to something more appealing.



              Now - the time it takes to copy 50GB from one drive to another, is not only bound by the hardware data-transfer rate of the bus (in your case, 10GBPS or little over 1 Gigabyte a second).



              It strongly depends on the read speed of your source drive and the write speed of your target drive - if your external drive is a mechanical HDD - it won't be able to sustain writing data at the theoretical USB-C 3.1 rate.



              Then - it also depend heavily on the data you try to copy. Is is just one large file? maybe a directory hierarchy containing millions of small files? something in between?



              When copying complicated file-system subsets (directory hierarchies) from one drive to another, For one, scanning the source directory and its descendents is a process that takes time. But also creating a complicated directory structure on the target drive takes lots of time too - regardless of the size of their contents.



              In your case, I believe it is just your external hard drive. It may be a slower HDD, or it won't support the faster connection variant.



              Last, but not least - faulty or poor-quality cables sometimes cause very-slow file transfers - and in some cases, these cables can create corrupt copies of the original data on the target. So check with another cable too.



              Last -Even with a slow HDD connected via old 480MBPS USB cable, I was able to copy a full hard-drive (512GB) in just under 45 minutes - so the whole thing can simply be a hardware/cabling issue.






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                There are many possible answers, but before I offer them - Have you actually tried to go on and start the copying process? The initial estimate is - well - just an estimate, and after the first few megabytes, it may jump down to something more appealing.



                Now - the time it takes to copy 50GB from one drive to another, is not only bound by the hardware data-transfer rate of the bus (in your case, 10GBPS or little over 1 Gigabyte a second).



                It strongly depends on the read speed of your source drive and the write speed of your target drive - if your external drive is a mechanical HDD - it won't be able to sustain writing data at the theoretical USB-C 3.1 rate.



                Then - it also depend heavily on the data you try to copy. Is is just one large file? maybe a directory hierarchy containing millions of small files? something in between?



                When copying complicated file-system subsets (directory hierarchies) from one drive to another, For one, scanning the source directory and its descendents is a process that takes time. But also creating a complicated directory structure on the target drive takes lots of time too - regardless of the size of their contents.



                In your case, I believe it is just your external hard drive. It may be a slower HDD, or it won't support the faster connection variant.



                Last, but not least - faulty or poor-quality cables sometimes cause very-slow file transfers - and in some cases, these cables can create corrupt copies of the original data on the target. So check with another cable too.



                Last -Even with a slow HDD connected via old 480MBPS USB cable, I was able to copy a full hard-drive (512GB) in just under 45 minutes - so the whole thing can simply be a hardware/cabling issue.






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  There are many possible answers, but before I offer them - Have you actually tried to go on and start the copying process? The initial estimate is - well - just an estimate, and after the first few megabytes, it may jump down to something more appealing.



                  Now - the time it takes to copy 50GB from one drive to another, is not only bound by the hardware data-transfer rate of the bus (in your case, 10GBPS or little over 1 Gigabyte a second).



                  It strongly depends on the read speed of your source drive and the write speed of your target drive - if your external drive is a mechanical HDD - it won't be able to sustain writing data at the theoretical USB-C 3.1 rate.



                  Then - it also depend heavily on the data you try to copy. Is is just one large file? maybe a directory hierarchy containing millions of small files? something in between?



                  When copying complicated file-system subsets (directory hierarchies) from one drive to another, For one, scanning the source directory and its descendents is a process that takes time. But also creating a complicated directory structure on the target drive takes lots of time too - regardless of the size of their contents.



                  In your case, I believe it is just your external hard drive. It may be a slower HDD, or it won't support the faster connection variant.



                  Last, but not least - faulty or poor-quality cables sometimes cause very-slow file transfers - and in some cases, these cables can create corrupt copies of the original data on the target. So check with another cable too.



                  Last -Even with a slow HDD connected via old 480MBPS USB cable, I was able to copy a full hard-drive (512GB) in just under 45 minutes - so the whole thing can simply be a hardware/cabling issue.






                  share|improve this answer













                  There are many possible answers, but before I offer them - Have you actually tried to go on and start the copying process? The initial estimate is - well - just an estimate, and after the first few megabytes, it may jump down to something more appealing.



                  Now - the time it takes to copy 50GB from one drive to another, is not only bound by the hardware data-transfer rate of the bus (in your case, 10GBPS or little over 1 Gigabyte a second).



                  It strongly depends on the read speed of your source drive and the write speed of your target drive - if your external drive is a mechanical HDD - it won't be able to sustain writing data at the theoretical USB-C 3.1 rate.



                  Then - it also depend heavily on the data you try to copy. Is is just one large file? maybe a directory hierarchy containing millions of small files? something in between?



                  When copying complicated file-system subsets (directory hierarchies) from one drive to another, For one, scanning the source directory and its descendents is a process that takes time. But also creating a complicated directory structure on the target drive takes lots of time too - regardless of the size of their contents.



                  In your case, I believe it is just your external hard drive. It may be a slower HDD, or it won't support the faster connection variant.



                  Last, but not least - faulty or poor-quality cables sometimes cause very-slow file transfers - and in some cases, these cables can create corrupt copies of the original data on the target. So check with another cable too.



                  Last -Even with a slow HDD connected via old 480MBPS USB cable, I was able to copy a full hard-drive (512GB) in just under 45 minutes - so the whole thing can simply be a hardware/cabling issue.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 9 at 20:22









                  Motti ShneorMotti Shneor

                  3541 silver badge6 bronze badges




                  3541 silver badge6 bronze badges













                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                      Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                      Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?