Anyone have a good PCIe USB 3.1 card they like?

On 04/06/2018 20:28, T wrote:
On 06/04/2018 10:32 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/06/2018 03:13, T wrote:

But you just said it's not an Intel chip:

Â* Chipset: Asmedia ASM1142

me make boo-boo.

I wonder if there are an USB3.1 cards with Intel chipsets?



Use USB 3.0 if it's just for making backups. You'll probably never find
a USB hard drive that goes anywhere near the speed limit of USB 3.0 anyway.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On 04/06/2018 20:25, T wrote:
The guy really should get a new computer, but he hates
Windows 10.

Well yes.

They completely update it every 6 months thus breaking some more of your
favourite old programs.

Why would anyone be pleased about that?

It's also pig ugly after Windows 7.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

T wrote:
On 06/04/2018 10:32 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/06/2018 03:13, T wrote:

But you just said it's not an Intel chip:

Chipset: Asmedia ASM1142

me make boo-boo.

I wonder if there are an USB3.1 cards with Intel chipsets?

Intel is only in the "add-on" business in a limited way.

It makes Ethernet products.

But it doesn't try to go head to head with Asmedia.
You won't find $40 Siig cards with an Intel chip
on them (with the exception of maybe an Ethernet card,
and even then, the Ethernet card might be Intel branded).

If there are four or six companies making competing
products, Intel is not interested. It doesn't like
participating in "fights to the bottom".

You need to ship a great deal of volume to make
a buck, in the add-on chip business. Intel has the
skill (and the IP blocks) to do it, but not the will.
They don't want to sell $5 8085 chips, or jelly bean
this-or-that. They want to sell plastic chips for
$300 a pop. That's their dream job. Just the
driver support team for products like that, would
probably hoover up all the profit (salaries).

Intel does Alpine Ridge for $8, but that's because
Thunderbolt is an Intel invention. And I don't know
how many competitors make similar chips.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9485/...vga-supermicro

https://ark.intel.com/products/87401...t-3-Controller

Intel has "tried" a number of businesses and dumped them.

To give an example of their dream job, take the FPGA
company they bought. Now, just recently, they offered
a PCB for sale, with 10GbE Ethernets and FPGAs on it.
The card costs *$40,000* and is sold to "quants". Now,
how is that for gouging a niche market ? Pretty sweet.
If you sell one of those, you can take the whole
department out for lunch. Quants are stock market
manipulators, who use low low latency Ethernet
connections to the Stock Exchange, to do their own
particular flavor of trading.

Who ever the individual was at Intel who figured out
somebody would buy that, I'm sure that individual
received a sports car this year as a bonus. How
many USB3 controllers at $5 a pop would you have
to sell to match that ? The net profit on a USB3
chip probably isn't that large.

Intel starts investigating alternative businesses,
any time it feels the wheels are falling off
the processor business. There will be a burst
of activity. In this case, pulling an FPGA company
into the fold, was a side effect (the FPGA company
might have been using them for fab services before
the acquisition).

Paul

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:04:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I found it strange that our Canadian Amazon price did not increase,
Thank goodness, still $79.00 I just renewed mine a couple weeks ago.

Hmm, how is that fair? :-)

I use Amazon prime a lot as the big major stores are all moved to the
outskirts of the city and seeing I don't drive or own a vehicle and cab
fares are so expensive I tend to use Amazon Prime a lot.
No delivery costs and 2 day service are great, And I have never had to
return anything.
I don't use the music and movie things, just the shopping part.

Yep, it's great if you use it a lot, which you and I do. It would be
awful for someone who made a single order per year. :-)

--

Char Jackson

On 06/04/2018 01:29 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 04/06/2018 20:28, T wrote:
On 06/04/2018 10:32 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/06/2018 03:13, T wrote:

But you just said it's not an Intel chip:

Â* Chipset: Asmedia ASM1142

me make boo-boo.

I wonder if there are an USB3.1 cards with Intel chipsets?



Use USB 3.0 if it's just for making backups. You'll probably never find
a USB hard drive that goes anywhere near the speed limit of USB 3.0 anyway.


The SSD ones seem to keep up. The mechanical ones, not so much

On 06/04/2018 01:32 PM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 04/06/2018 20:25, T wrote:
The guy really should get a new computer, but he hates
Windows 10.

Well yes.

They completely update it every 6 months thus breaking some more of your
favourite old programs.

Why would anyone be pleased about that?

It's also pig ugly after Windows 7.


It is a horrible mess. 1803 was fun! Broke a ton
of stuff.

I can't get w7 oem disks anymore

And Linux's lack of business software makes it
hopeless for small businesses

Brian Gregory wrote:
On 04/06/2018 20:28, T wrote:
On 06/04/2018 10:32 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 02/06/2018 03:13, T wrote:

But you just said it's not an Intel chip:

Chipset: Asmedia ASM1142

me make boo-boo.

I wonder if there are an USB3.1 cards with Intel chipsets?



Use USB 3.0 if it's just for making backups. You'll probably never find
a USB hard drive that goes anywhere near the speed limit of USB 3.0 anyway.


There was one product.

It had SATA on one end, and a USB3 TypeC connector on the
other end. And it would do 700MB/sec because it was an SSD.

I see a number of sites doing USB3 testing now, using products
that have RAID 0 inside the box, and that's how they build
an SSD based solution that goes fast enough to test the plumbing.
Rather than that specialized elegant all-in-one USB3 TypeC test device.
There are now cheaper ways to build a test device for a USB3 port.

Paul

On 06/04/2018 4:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:04:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I found it strange that our Canadian Amazon price did not increase,
Thank goodness, still $79.00 I just renewed mine a couple weeks ago.

Hmm, how is that fair? :-)

I use Amazon prime a lot as the big major stores are all moved to the
outskirts of the city and seeing I don't drive or own a vehicle and cab
fares are so expensive I tend to use Amazon Prime a lot.
No delivery costs and 2 day service are great, And I have never had to
return anything.
I don't use the music and movie things, just the shopping part.

Yep, it's great if you use it a lot, which you and I do. It would be
awful for someone who made a single order per year. :-)


Maybe they made a mistake on my renewal somehow, Usually we are about 20
percent or so higher than the USA, But I'll take it anyway. :-)

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 06/04/2018 4:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:04:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I found it strange that our Canadian Amazon price did not increase,
Thank goodness, still $79.00 I just renewed mine a couple weeks ago.

Hmm, how is that fair? :-)

I use Amazon prime a lot as the big major stores are all moved to the
outskirts of the city and seeing I don't drive or own a vehicle and cab
fares are so expensive I tend to use Amazon Prime a lot.
No delivery costs and 2 day service are great, And I have never had to
return anything.
I don't use the music and movie things, just the shopping part.

Yep, it's great if you use it a lot, which you and I do. It would be
awful for someone who made a single order per year. :-)


Maybe they made a mistake on my renewal somehow, Usually we are about 20
percent or so higher than the USA, But I'll take it anyway. :-)

Rene


"This means that if you have an Indian account for just Rs. 499,
you can still access the full US catalogue of Amazon Prime Video,
although the US Prime membership costs $99, or around Rs. 6700.

Right now, you can subscribe to Prime at just Rs. 499 per year;
the full price is supposed to be Rs. 999 per year, though it's
unclear when that comes into affect.
"

999/6700 * $99.00 = $14.76 per year

I think Bezos is using "math" to set the price in each
country, rather than "exchange rate". Some kind of
"what the market will bear" math.

Paul

On 06/04/2018 6:36 PM, Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 06/04/2018 4:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:04:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I found it strange that our Canadian Amazon price did not increase,
Thank goodness, still $79.00 I just renewed mine a couple weeks ago.

Hmm, how is that fair? :-)

I use Amazon prime a lot as the big major stores are all moved to the
outskirts of the city and seeing I don't drive or own a vehicle and cab
fares are so expensive I tend to use Amazon Prime a lot.
No delivery costs and 2 day service are great, And I have never had to
return anything.
I don't use the music and movie things, just the shopping part.

Yep, it's great if you use it a lot, which you and I do. It would be
awful for someone who made a single order per year. :-)


Maybe they made a mistake on my renewal somehow, Usually we are about
20 percent or so higher than the USA, But I'll take it anyway.Â* :-)

Rene


"This means that if you have an Indian account for just Rs. 499,
Â*you can still access the full US catalogue of Amazon Prime Video,
Â*although the US Prime membership costs $99, or around Rs. 6700.

Â*Right now, you can subscribe to Prime at just Rs. 499 per year;
Â*the full price is supposed to be Rs. 999 per year, though it's
Â*unclear when that comes into affect.
"

999/6700 * $99.00 = $14.76 per year

I think Bezos is using "math" to set the price in each
country, rather than "exchange rate". Some kind of
"what the market will bear" math.

Â*Â* Paul


Could be, I thought it was very reasonable even though I don't use the
Video and music stuff. Im just greatful for the fast delivery and no
shipping costs on most items. :-)

Rene

T wrote:

I am to the point where I will recommend installing a second
internal hard drive or going with carbonite.

How much data is getting transferred (for incremental, differential, or
full backups)? The customer might have great downstream bandwidth, like
250 Mbps, but upstream bandwidth might be horrible, like 12 Mbps. The
backgrounded upload to Carbonite could take so long that it stalls or
interferes with the next day's backup.

Also, these online backup services will throttle the downstream
bandwidth on a restore. It can take hours to retrieve an image over the
network from a throttled backup provider versus 10-30 minutes for a full
restore from local backup media.

I use OneDrive (and have used GoogleDrive) with their local clients to
store only [changed] data files up on the server. I use SyncBack Free
to copy only changed data (and only data) files to the local OneDrive
folder where it then gets uploaded in the background to the server (but
even that can take hours). I wouldn't use Carbonite or any online
backup or file service for anything but data files. The customer
doesn't want to sit around for hours on end waiting for a full image
restore to finish.

Perhaps Carbonite is different, especially since you are paying them
monthly, in not throttling their downstream bandwidth. Often the
provider never mentions downstream throttling, so users discover it for
themselves. For upstream, however, they're not going to send the files
any faster than the size of your upstream pipe. Does the customer have
synchronous or asynchronous upstream and downstream bandwidth? My
personal service tier with my ISP is 342 Mbps up and 12 Mbps down.

https://support.carbonite.com/articl...p-to-the-Cloud

For me, my data files from the OS+app partition (C are just under 1 GB
in total size. According to their chart (after selecting "enhanced 6")
and using their "fiber optic" row, the 1 GB upload would take about 15
minutes. 1000 megabytes * 8 bits/byte / 10 megabits/sec = 800 sec, or
13.3 minutes. Not too bad if you don't have much data to upload. 1 GB
is just the data files on my C: drive. Most of my data (186 GB) is in a
separate partition on a physically different drive (D. At 12 Mbps, it
would take 34 hours to upload. That's longer to upload than the 24-hour
interval for my data-only scheduled backup. No, I don't upload 186 GB
to the file server. I use local media for that backup.

What's the total size of the data files that your customer will be
uploading to Carbonite (or any other file server)? What is the
customer's upload bandwidth?

A full image backup of my C: drive is shy of 20 GB (Macrium Reflect
Free). Moving the data files to D: is what keeps my C: images to a much
smaller size. https://techinternets.com/copy_calc?do takes in the type
of connection to the host along with overhead from other data in the
packets, and they say my 20 GB over 1 GBps-capable Ethernet LAN pipped
into a 10 Mbps upstream bandwidth would take 5 hours to upload -- during
which my computer must remained powered so the local client can send the
backup file to the server.

How big would be their backup image sent to Carbonite?
Does your customer leave their computer powered up all the time?
When they visit Speedtest.net, what is their upstream bandwidth?
Will backupTime + uploadTime be less than scheduledBackupInterval?

Is data the only filetype the customer wants to save online? Online
backup services are only feasible for small data-only backups unless the
customer has a huge upstream bandwidth. If not throttled at the server,
getting the backup image to do a restore won't be intolerable. The 20
GB full image backup for my C: drive downloaded at 340 Mbps - if
sustained - would take 8 minutes (and then add the time to actually
write 20 GB to the partition). However, often upstream bandwidth is
horrible, especially when compared to downstream bandwidth. That same
20 GB full backup image uploaded at 12 Mbps - if sustained - would take
about 4 hours. Not bad if done in the background but at a lower
priority (to prevent impacting other programs) and reduced bandwidth for
the client (so I could still use other clients to access the Internet)
means the upload would take even longer.

Use Carbonite only for data files, and be selective what data files will
be included and which are disposable or can be reproduced to eliminate
from the data-only backup.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 19:59:20 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Does the customer have
synchronous or asynchronous upstream and downstream bandwidth? My
personal service tier with my ISP is 342 Mbps up and 12 Mbps down.

Your autocorrect let you down. It should have given you symmetrical and
asymmetrical rather than synchronous and asynchronous.

--

Char Jackson

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Does the customer have synchronous or asynchronous upstream and
downstream bandwidth? My personal service tier with my ISP is 342
Mbps up and 12 Mbps down.

Your autocorrect let you down. It should have given you symmetrical
and asymmetrical rather than synchronous and asynchronous.

Oops. Need more coffee.

On 06/04/2018 05:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
T wrote:

I am to the point where I will recommend installing a second
internal hard drive or going with carbonite.

How much data is getting transferred (for incremental, differential, or
full backups)? The customer might have great downstream bandwidth, like
250 Mbps, but upstream bandwidth might be horrible, like 12 Mbps. The
backgrounded upload to Carbonite could take so long that it stalls or
interferes with the next day's backup.

Also, these online backup services will throttle the downstream
bandwidth on a restore. It can take hours to retrieve an image over the
network from a throttled backup provider versus 10-30 minutes for a full
restore from local backup media.

I use OneDrive (and have used GoogleDrive) with their local clients to
store only [changed] data files up on the server. I use SyncBack Free
to copy only changed data (and only data) files to the local OneDrive
folder where it then gets uploaded in the background to the server (but
even that can take hours). I wouldn't use Carbonite or any online
backup or file service for anything but data files. The customer
doesn't want to sit around for hours on end waiting for a full image
restore to finish.

Perhaps Carbonite is different, especially since you are paying them
monthly, in not throttling their downstream bandwidth. Often the
provider never mentions downstream throttling, so users discover it for
themselves. For upstream, however, they're not going to send the files
any faster than the size of your upstream pipe. Does the customer have
synchronous or asynchronous upstream and downstream bandwidth? My
personal service tier with my ISP is 342 Mbps up and 12 Mbps down.

https://support.carbonite.com/articl...p-to-the-Cloud

For me, my data files from the OS+app partition (C are just under 1 GB
in total size. According to their chart (after selecting "enhanced 6")
and using their "fiber optic" row, the 1 GB upload would take about 15
minutes. 1000 megabytes * 8 bits/byte / 10 megabits/sec = 800 sec, or
13.3 minutes. Not too bad if you don't have much data to upload. 1 GB
is just the data files on my C: drive. Most of my data (186 GB) is in a
separate partition on a physically different drive (D. At 12 Mbps, it
would take 34 hours to upload. That's longer to upload than the 24-hour
interval for my data-only scheduled backup. No, I don't upload 186 GB
to the file server. I use local media for that backup.

What's the total size of the data files that your customer will be
uploading to Carbonite (or any other file server)? What is the
customer's upload bandwidth?

A full image backup of my C: drive is shy of 20 GB (Macrium Reflect
Free). Moving the data files to D: is what keeps my C: images to a much
smaller size. https://techinternets.com/copy_calc?do takes in the type
of connection to the host along with overhead from other data in the
packets, and they say my 20 GB over 1 GBps-capable Ethernet LAN pipped
into a 10 Mbps upstream bandwidth would take 5 hours to upload -- during
which my computer must remained powered so the local client can send the
backup file to the server.

How big would be their backup image sent to Carbonite?
Does your customer leave their computer powered up all the time?
When they visit Speedtest.net, what is their upstream bandwidth?
Will backupTime + uploadTime be less than scheduledBackupInterval?

Is data the only filetype the customer wants to save online? Online
backup services are only feasible for small data-only backups unless the
customer has a huge upstream bandwidth. If not throttled at the server,
getting the backup image to do a restore won't be intolerable. The 20
GB full image backup for my C: drive downloaded at 340 Mbps - if
sustained - would take 8 minutes (and then add the time to actually
write 20 GB to the partition). However, often upstream bandwidth is
horrible, especially when compared to downstream bandwidth. That same
20 GB full backup image uploaded at 12 Mbps - if sustained - would take
about 4 hours. Not bad if done in the background but at a lower
priority (to prevent impacting other programs) and reduced bandwidth for
the client (so I could still use other clients to access the Internet)
means the upload would take even longer.

Use Carbonite only for data files, and be selective what data files will
be included and which are disposable or can be reproduced to eliminate
from the data-only backup.


about 80 GB per backup.

I found an esata solution I like

T wrote:

about 80 GB per backup.

I found an esata solution I like

I re-ran some test cases here (as I couldn't
find my old results file).

The test was an ASM2115 enclosure with a 512GB SSD connected.

This is a NEC/Renesas dual port addon USB3.0 card. Tried
in two different slots

WinXP PCIe x1 Rev1 151 MB/sec (out of 250 max)
WinXP PCIe x1 Rev2 240 MB/sec (out of 500 max)

And this is the Test Machine, using as AsMedia addon
already on the motherboard. The speed is close to the
same as the previous test.

237 MB/sec (Win7 X79 addon USB3.0 port, PCIe Rev2 connected)

Something interesting happened, when I tested
an ASM2142 USB 3.1 Rev2 10Gbit/sec under Windows 10.
The card was plugged into a Rev.3 video slot.

ASM2142 in x1 Rev3 250 MB/sec HDTune result. For some reason,
the old free version of HDTune 2.55 cannot
properly test this.

ASM2142 in x1 Rev3 354 MB/sec (using ASM2115 and 512GB SSD))
Used 7ZIP CRC32 file check as test
stimulus, got faster transfers

SSD SATAIII test 400 MB/sec (Win7 X79 SATAIII port)

So that gives some idea what a run-of-the-mill
setup gives. The 354MB/sec result appears to be
using UASP, as that entry is in the Storage Controllers
section of Device Manager.

Compared to a commodity 4TB 200MB/sec HDD, only
the first result sucks. The combination of a PCI Express
x1 Rev1 port and USB3 doesn't quite match a good hard drive.

They do make an M.2 enclosure for USB3.1 Rev2, and that
can go just a wee bit faster. But I don't own an M.2
or an enclosure like that, so I won't be testing that.

Paul