Copy to USB memory stick really slow?Large file Copy speed issueIncomplete file transfers to USB drive with NautilusNautilus doesn't show the exact copy speedDrive damaged during VMWare copyUbuntu 14.04 and Huawei E173s - only storage modeTails USB won't boot in ubuntu MATE 15.04Really slow file transfer from Ubuntu 18.04 to USB 2.0 pendrives

Interval variables in MIP

Is there any reason a person would voluntarily choose to have PMI?

Who verifies the trust of certificate authorities?

Is it harder to enter an atmosphere perpendicular or at an angle

Is Twinkle twinkle little star based on a drone/bourdon?

A novel (or maybe a whole series) where a weird disease infects men and machines

Arcane Adept: is this proposed Warlock feat balanced as compared to PHB feats?

Feeling of forcing oneself to do something

Why try to impeach Trump now?

Where did prejudice against left-handed people originate from?

What should be done when the theory behind a PhD thesis turns out to be wrong?

Density plot on the surface of a sphere

Does it make sense to use strict equality constraint in optimization?

Typing "PartOf" in excel changes automatically to part of?

Accidentally likened superior to assailant

Is the use of ellipsis "..." dismissive or rude?

Between while and do in shell script

Can a creature of any alignment attune to this magic weapon in Curse of Strahd?

What should be done if I suspect a player is using weighted dice?

A single word for "not allowed to be changed" or "must be this way"

Is it possible to stall a plane so badly that the nose refuses to go down due to lack of airspeed?

Is American Express widely accepted in Hong Kong?

Can I weaken a coil spring consisting of spring steel?

Why isn't current carried through a vacuum?



Copy to USB memory stick really slow?


Large file Copy speed issueIncomplete file transfers to USB drive with NautilusNautilus doesn't show the exact copy speedDrive damaged during VMWare copyUbuntu 14.04 and Huawei E173s - only storage modeTails USB won't boot in ubuntu MATE 15.04Really slow file transfer from Ubuntu 18.04 to USB 2.0 pendrives






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









45


















When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question

























  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39












  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44

















45


















When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question

























  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39












  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44













45













45









45


19






When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk









share|improve this question














When I copy files to the USB device, it takes much longer than in windows (same usb device, same port) it's faster than USB 1.0 speeds (1MB/s) but much slower than USB 2.0 speeds (12MB/s). To copy 1.8GB takes me over 10 minutes (it should be < 3 min.) I have two identical SanDisk Cruzer 8GB sticks, and I have the same problem with both. I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.



The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes. Interrupting the copy at this point seems to result in corruption at the tail end of the file. If I wait for it to complete the copy is successful.



Any ideas? dmesg output below:



[64059.432309] usb 2-1.2: new high-speed USB device number 5 using ehci_hcd
[64059.526419] scsi8 : usb-storage 2-1.2:1.0
[64060.529071] scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access SanDisk Cruzer 1.14 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[64060.530834] sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg4 type 0
[64060.531925] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] 15633408 512-byte logical blocks: (8.00 GB/7.45 GiB)
[64060.533419] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Write Protect is off
[64060.533428] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Mode Sense: 03 00 00 00
[64060.534319] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.534327] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.537988] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.537995] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.541290] sdd: sdd1
[64060.544617] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] No Caching mode page present
[64060.544619] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Assuming drive cache: write through
[64060.544621] sd 8:0:0:0: [sdd] Attached SCSI removable disk






usb






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 14 '12 at 21:46









EloffEloff

6221 gold badge6 silver badges14 bronze badges




6221 gold badge6 silver badges14 bronze badges















  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39












  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44

















  • Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 14 '12 at 22:43











  • that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:37











  • The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 0:39












  • "I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

    – Eloff
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:34











  • Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

    – RobotHumans
    Apr 15 '12 at 20:44
















Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

– RobotHumans
Apr 14 '12 at 22:43





Linux defers disk writes in exchange for performing other tasks faster. Just a guess, try running sync and see if it doesn't speed up the process. <--untested but possible

– RobotHumans
Apr 14 '12 at 22:43













that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 0:37





that doesn't make sense that it would defer it for one type of USB but not another. Also I seem to recall linux calls sync every 30 seconds or so? Might be outdated. I'm expecting this is some kind of driver or compatibility issue since it depends on the type of device.

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 0:37













The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 0:39






The being faster on other USB thumbdrives isn't in your question. If it were, I would have suggested looking in to hdparm. So it makes sense if you view it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know your whole set-up, but depends on your question for details

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 0:39














"I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 20:34





"I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds." it was in there, but well hidden I will admit :) So what's this hdparm stuff you allude to?

– Eloff
Apr 15 '12 at 20:34













Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 20:44





Okay, SSD and flash memory are SO not the same thing. But moving along, hdparm is a utility that lets you set access/spin speeds for drive manually

– RobotHumans
Apr 15 '12 at 20:44










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















29



















Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




To copy 1.8GB




Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.




  • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



  • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.



    • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

    • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.


  • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.



To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows



  • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

  • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

  • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

  • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

  • How do the times compare?





share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

    – irrational John
    May 31 '12 at 16:11







  • 2





    This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

    – zrajm
    Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






  • 4





    @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

    – Pithikos
    Oct 20 '14 at 16:00












  • How to disable this caching behavior then?

    – Aminu Kano
    Sep 13 at 5:00


















7



















Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
says they fixed the bug.






share|improve this answer



























  • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

    – irrational John
    May 31 '12 at 16:03






  • 3





    @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

    – Marco Ceppi
    May 31 '12 at 16:36











  • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

    – irrational John
    May 31 '12 at 16:54


















7



















I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






share|improve this answer
































    5



















    Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



    In my case,



    umount /media/usb0
    mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


    After that it is coping very fast.






    share|improve this answer

























    • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

      – Irfan
      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






    • 19





      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

      – LondonRob
      May 17 '16 at 10:29











    • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

      – sergzach
      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01


















    3



















    It's 2019 and I'm still having this same issue. So I figured I search the internet for a solution. I found the following page that suggests one: https://gist.github.com/2E0PGS/f63544f8abe69acc5caaa54f56efe52f



    It says:



    Execute the following commands in a console to see if it fixes the problem for you. You might need to sudo su first to have the required permission.



    echo $((16*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes
    echo $((48*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes


    If it works you could make this change persistent across reboots by pasting the two lines at the end of your /etc/rc.local file.



    For me it had the following effect:



    Prior copying large files to an USB drive would start out really fast (like 60 MB/s) and become slower and slower (< 10 MB/s) until it looked like it would never finish.



    Now it starts out slower, but gets faster and faster and finishes sooner than before. So it does seem to "solve" the problem or at least have a positive effect.






    share|improve this answer
































      1



















      If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






      share|improve this answer


































        1



















        When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



        If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






        share|improve this answer

























        • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

          – Ben Lutgens
          Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











        • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

          – A.Danischewski
          Oct 28 '15 at 17:07












        • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

          – Jenny O'Reilly
          Sep 23 '17 at 12:38


















        0



















        I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






        share|improve this answer
































          -2



















          I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



          cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
          cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


          I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






          share|improve this answer


































            -3



















            Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



            Hope this helped






            share|improve this answer





























              10 Answers
              10






              active

              oldest

              votes








              10 Answers
              10






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              29



















              Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





              Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




              The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




              One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



              Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



              Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




              To copy 1.8GB




              Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



              Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




              I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.




              • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



              • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.



                • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

                • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.


              • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.



              To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



              Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows



              • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

              • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

              • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

              • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

              • How do the times compare?





              share|improve this answer




















              • 2





                cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:11







              • 2





                This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

                – zrajm
                Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






              • 4





                @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

                – Pithikos
                Oct 20 '14 at 16:00












              • How to disable this caching behavior then?

                – Aminu Kano
                Sep 13 at 5:00















              29



















              Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





              Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




              The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




              One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



              Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



              Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




              To copy 1.8GB




              Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



              Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




              I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.




              • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



              • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.



                • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

                • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.


              • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.



              To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



              Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows



              • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

              • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

              • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

              • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

              • How do the times compare?





              share|improve this answer




















              • 2





                cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:11







              • 2





                This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

                – zrajm
                Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






              • 4





                @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

                – Pithikos
                Oct 20 '14 at 16:00












              • How to disable this caching behavior then?

                – Aminu Kano
                Sep 13 at 5:00













              29















              29











              29









              Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





              Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




              The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




              One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



              Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



              Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




              To copy 1.8GB




              Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



              Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




              I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.




              • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



              • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.



                • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

                • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.


              • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.



              To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



              Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows



              • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

              • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

              • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

              • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

              • How do the times compare?





              share|improve this answer














              Why is copying to my USB drive so slow in Linux (and faster in Windows)?





              Reason 1. File caching can make writes appear slower or faster




              The problem I seem to see in the GUI is that the progress bar goes to 90% almost instantly, completes to 100% a little slower and then hangs there for 10 minutes.




              One thing you need to understand is file caching. Linux (and Windows) will use otherwise "empty" RAM to cache read/write operations and make them faster on subsequent accesses. Caching copy operations to slow devices results in the behavior you see -- the "fast completion" is actually writing to the cache, and then it slows and stops because the actual flushing of the data in the cache (sync) to the slow device is taking very long. If you abort at that point, the data is corrupted (as you noted) since the sync never finished.



              Such copying in Windows may seem faster (including the reported MB/sec speeds) because sometimes Windows will not wait for the sync, and declare the job completed as soon as the data is written to cache.



              Reason 2. Writing lots of files, especially small ones, is slow




              To copy 1.8GB




              Because of the way flash memory and filesystems work, the fastest throughput (speed) is achieved when writing very large files. Writing lots of small files, or even mixed data containing a number of small files can slow the process down a lot. This affects hard drives too, but to a somewhat lesser extent.



              Reason 3. Write speeds of a USB stick and an SSD cannot be compared




              I have a super talent 32GB USB SSD in the neighboring port and it works at expected speeds.




              • A garden variety USB stick usually consists of flash memory chips that are written to serially (sequentially), and does not have any cache of its own.



              • An SSD, on the other hand, contains a controller which writes to the flash memory chips parallel, increasing the throughput by a factor of 2 or more over the USB stick.



                • If your 32GB SSD had 4x 8GB chips, it would still be 4x faster than the USB stick at any write operation.

                • The SSD also contains RAM cache (like hard disks), so it can quickly store incoming data in the cache and tell the OS that it's done, while it still has to actually write that data to the flash memory.


              • So, with one large file, your 32GB GB with the 4x structure we assumed, would be 4x as fast; with many small files, it would be 10x or more faster because it could intelligently store them in its cache.



              To sum up, these are the reasons why file copying to USB sticks may appear slower in Linux. Is it actually slower because of a hardware/driver issue or whatever....



              Doing a proper comparison of write speeds between Linux and Windows



              • First of all, forget about the SSD because of reason 3. It's like oranges and apples.

              • To negate the effects of reason 1 (caching) and reason 2 (small files), you need to test with a single large file, larger than the amount of RAM on the test system.

              • In Linux you can create it with dd if=/dev/urandom of=largetest bs=1M count=7500, which gives you a 7500 MB test file. Assuming your system has less than 4GB or so of RAM, it's good enough. Copy that to a freshly formatted Sandisk 8GB stick, and time it.

              • Reboot in Windows, and copy largetest from the USB stick to your hard disk. Reboot again (to remove it from the cache). Then format the USB stick (same vfat/FAT32!), and copy largetest from the hard disk to the stick.

              • How do the times compare?






              share|improve this answer













              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer










              answered May 31 '12 at 4:56









              ishish

              123k35 gold badges281 silver badges299 bronze badges




              123k35 gold badges281 silver badges299 bronze badges










              • 2





                cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:11







              • 2





                This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

                – zrajm
                Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






              • 4





                @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

                – Pithikos
                Oct 20 '14 at 16:00












              • How to disable this caching behavior then?

                – Aminu Kano
                Sep 13 at 5:00












              • 2





                cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:11







              • 2





                This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

                – zrajm
                Feb 28 '14 at 17:48






              • 4





                @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

                – Pithikos
                Oct 20 '14 at 16:00












              • How to disable this caching behavior then?

                – Aminu Kano
                Sep 13 at 5:00







              2




              2





              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11






              cc: @Eloff Re Reason 1: Yes, cache syncing can certainly affect apparent write times. But would cache alone explain why it hangs there for 10 minutes?? I think we need more details from OP. Re Reason 2: Why do you assume this transfer consisted of many small files? I do not think the OP provides any details about this 1.8GB transfer, does he? Re Reason 3: Yes, SSD is a different beast. It also would probably be attached via SATA and not USB. I think the OP simply mis-spoke and referred to a USB stick as an SSD. But again, no way of knowing unless we get more details from the OP.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:11





              2




              2





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48





              This answer blatantly ignores how the question was formulated. The question clearly talks about one big file, and the fact that interrupting the copy results in a mangled file.

              – zrajm
              Feb 28 '14 at 17:48




              4




              4





              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00






              @zrajm that's true. However for people like me bumping in the same problem, this is very helpful.

              – Pithikos
              Oct 20 '14 at 16:00














              How to disable this caching behavior then?

              – Aminu Kano
              Sep 13 at 5:00





              How to disable this caching behavior then?

              – Aminu Kano
              Sep 13 at 5:00













              7



















              Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
              wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



              https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
              says they fixed the bug.






              share|improve this answer



























              • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:03






              • 3





                @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                – Marco Ceppi
                May 31 '12 at 16:36











              • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:54















              7



















              Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
              wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



              https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
              says they fixed the bug.






              share|improve this answer



























              • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:03






              • 3





                @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                – Marco Ceppi
                May 31 '12 at 16:36











              • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:54













              7















              7











              7









              Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
              wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



              https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
              says they fixed the bug.






              share|improve this answer
















              Found the fix all i did was unmount, remove drive, and run sudo modprobe ehci_hcd in the Terminal. Insert drive and agian sudo modprobe ehci_hcd when I put the drive in and
              wow 20/mbs thought i would share. Hope I dont have to do it every time... but it's not to hard...



              https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/177235
              says they fixed the bug.







              share|improve this answer















              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer








              edited May 23 '12 at 11:37









              Marco Ceppi

              44.2k24 gold badges159 silver badges194 bronze badges




              44.2k24 gold badges159 silver badges194 bronze badges










              answered May 4 '12 at 7:03









              Dj RadioDj Radio

              711 bronze badge




              711 bronze badge















              • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:03






              • 3





                @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                – Marco Ceppi
                May 31 '12 at 16:36











              • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:54

















              • Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:03






              • 3





                @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

                – Marco Ceppi
                May 31 '12 at 16:36











              • @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

                – irrational John
                May 31 '12 at 16:54
















              Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:03





              Seriously?? That bug report is from December of 2007 and references Ubuntu gutsy 7.10. (FYI: @MarcoCeppi)

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:03




              3




              3





              @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

              – Marco Ceppi
              May 31 '12 at 16:36





              @irrationalJohn I didn't provide the answer, I just cleaned it up. Secondly just because a bug report is old, doesn't mean it's not still valid. It's being triaged according this

              – Marco Ceppi
              May 31 '12 at 16:36













              @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:54





              @MarcoCeppi Yes, I know you only edited. That's why I prefaced with "FYI:". I figured if you edited it you might (or might not) be interested. I figured if you didn't care, you'd just ignore the notice. As for an old bug report still having relevance ... Over 4 years ago and I think at least 8 (?) releases later? For a performance bug? Sure, it may be possible, but it's not the first place I'd look. FWIW.

              – irrational John
              May 31 '12 at 16:54











              7



















              I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
              For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






              share|improve this answer





























                7



















                I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
                For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






                share|improve this answer



























                  7















                  7











                  7









                  I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
                  For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....






                  share|improve this answer














                  I think the chances are very low that it is a port issue. It is more likely a LINUX (or linux configuration) issue - googgle around and you will find thousands of issue reports about slow USB in linux/ubuntu.
                  For me it is almost a showstopper for linux - I now have an Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and still have this issue (so I rather use the Win7 setup - mainly/only because of this). This issue (or something with similar symptoms) is there for several years now, apparently no fix. And during this time I tried several physical PCs with several different ubuntu versions (default config) and 2-3 different USB sticks....







                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jun 22 '13 at 17:13









                  PeterPeter

                  711 silver badge1 bronze badge




                  711 silver badge1 bronze badge
























                      5



















                      Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                      In my case,



                      umount /media/usb0
                      mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                      After that it is coping very fast.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                        – Irfan
                        Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                      • 19





                        This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                        – LondonRob
                        May 17 '16 at 10:29











                      • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                        – sergzach
                        Jan 19 '18 at 10:01















                      5



















                      Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                      In my case,



                      umount /media/usb0
                      mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                      After that it is coping very fast.






                      share|improve this answer

























                      • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                        – Irfan
                        Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                      • 19





                        This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                        – LondonRob
                        May 17 '16 at 10:29











                      • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                        – sergzach
                        Jan 19 '18 at 10:01













                      5















                      5











                      5









                      Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                      In my case,



                      umount /media/usb0
                      mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                      After that it is coping very fast.






                      share|improve this answer














                      Just umount the device if it is automounted already, and manually mount it to /mnt/foldername.



                      In my case,



                      umount /media/usb0
                      mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/sam


                      After that it is coping very fast.







                      share|improve this answer













                      share|improve this answer




                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Dec 10 '14 at 17:13









                      msnfreakymsnfreaky

                      1692 silver badges6 bronze badges




                      1692 silver badges6 bronze badges















                      • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                        – Irfan
                        Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                      • 19





                        This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                        – LondonRob
                        May 17 '16 at 10:29











                      • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                        – sergzach
                        Jan 19 '18 at 10:01

















                      • This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                        – Irfan
                        Jan 26 '16 at 10:52






                      • 19





                        This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                        – LondonRob
                        May 17 '16 at 10:29











                      • @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                        – sergzach
                        Jan 19 '18 at 10:01
















                      This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52





                      This, along with rsync instead of cp seems to do the trick.

                      – Irfan
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:52




                      19




                      19





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29





                      This didn't make any difference to my situation. Also, this isn't really a solution without some theory as to why this is supposed to make a difference.

                      – LondonRob
                      May 17 '16 at 10:29













                      @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01





                      @Irfan No, rsync does slow down too...

                      – sergzach
                      Jan 19 '18 at 10:01











                      3



















                      It's 2019 and I'm still having this same issue. So I figured I search the internet for a solution. I found the following page that suggests one: https://gist.github.com/2E0PGS/f63544f8abe69acc5caaa54f56efe52f



                      It says:



                      Execute the following commands in a console to see if it fixes the problem for you. You might need to sudo su first to have the required permission.



                      echo $((16*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes
                      echo $((48*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes


                      If it works you could make this change persistent across reboots by pasting the two lines at the end of your /etc/rc.local file.



                      For me it had the following effect:



                      Prior copying large files to an USB drive would start out really fast (like 60 MB/s) and become slower and slower (< 10 MB/s) until it looked like it would never finish.



                      Now it starts out slower, but gets faster and faster and finishes sooner than before. So it does seem to "solve" the problem or at least have a positive effect.






                      share|improve this answer





























                        3



















                        It's 2019 and I'm still having this same issue. So I figured I search the internet for a solution. I found the following page that suggests one: https://gist.github.com/2E0PGS/f63544f8abe69acc5caaa54f56efe52f



                        It says:



                        Execute the following commands in a console to see if it fixes the problem for you. You might need to sudo su first to have the required permission.



                        echo $((16*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes
                        echo $((48*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes


                        If it works you could make this change persistent across reboots by pasting the two lines at the end of your /etc/rc.local file.



                        For me it had the following effect:



                        Prior copying large files to an USB drive would start out really fast (like 60 MB/s) and become slower and slower (< 10 MB/s) until it looked like it would never finish.



                        Now it starts out slower, but gets faster and faster and finishes sooner than before. So it does seem to "solve" the problem or at least have a positive effect.






                        share|improve this answer



























                          3















                          3











                          3









                          It's 2019 and I'm still having this same issue. So I figured I search the internet for a solution. I found the following page that suggests one: https://gist.github.com/2E0PGS/f63544f8abe69acc5caaa54f56efe52f



                          It says:



                          Execute the following commands in a console to see if it fixes the problem for you. You might need to sudo su first to have the required permission.



                          echo $((16*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes
                          echo $((48*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes


                          If it works you could make this change persistent across reboots by pasting the two lines at the end of your /etc/rc.local file.



                          For me it had the following effect:



                          Prior copying large files to an USB drive would start out really fast (like 60 MB/s) and become slower and slower (< 10 MB/s) until it looked like it would never finish.



                          Now it starts out slower, but gets faster and faster and finishes sooner than before. So it does seem to "solve" the problem or at least have a positive effect.






                          share|improve this answer














                          It's 2019 and I'm still having this same issue. So I figured I search the internet for a solution. I found the following page that suggests one: https://gist.github.com/2E0PGS/f63544f8abe69acc5caaa54f56efe52f



                          It says:



                          Execute the following commands in a console to see if it fixes the problem for you. You might need to sudo su first to have the required permission.



                          echo $((16*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_bytes
                          echo $((48*1024*1024)) > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_bytes


                          If it works you could make this change persistent across reboots by pasting the two lines at the end of your /etc/rc.local file.



                          For me it had the following effect:



                          Prior copying large files to an USB drive would start out really fast (like 60 MB/s) and become slower and slower (< 10 MB/s) until it looked like it would never finish.



                          Now it starts out slower, but gets faster and faster and finishes sooner than before. So it does seem to "solve" the problem or at least have a positive effect.







                          share|improve this answer













                          share|improve this answer




                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Sep 28 at 13:02









                          Jenny O'ReillyJenny O'Reilly

                          2412 silver badges10 bronze badges




                          2412 silver badges10 bronze badges
























                              1



















                              If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                              share|improve this answer































                                1



















                                If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                                share|improve this answer





























                                  1















                                  1











                                  1









                                  If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.






                                  share|improve this answer
















                                  If you switch to a USB 3.0 , you will go from 1mb/s to a woping 5-8mb/s. I switch to a 3.0 USB pci and external HD and haven't looked back.







                                  share|improve this answer















                                  share|improve this answer




                                  share|improve this answer








                                  edited May 31 '12 at 15:31









                                  fossfreedom

                                  156k39 gold badges342 silver badges385 bronze badges




                                  156k39 gold badges342 silver badges385 bronze badges










                                  answered May 26 '12 at 9:53









                                  Ghost loggerGhost logger

                                  193 bronze badges




                                  193 bronze badges
























                                      1



















                                      When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                                      If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                                      share|improve this answer

























                                      • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                        – Ben Lutgens
                                        Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                                      • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                        – A.Danischewski
                                        Oct 28 '15 at 17:07












                                      • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                        – Jenny O'Reilly
                                        Sep 23 '17 at 12:38















                                      1



















                                      When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                                      If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                                      share|improve this answer

























                                      • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                        – Ben Lutgens
                                        Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                                      • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                        – A.Danischewski
                                        Oct 28 '15 at 17:07












                                      • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                        – Jenny O'Reilly
                                        Sep 23 '17 at 12:38













                                      1















                                      1











                                      1









                                      When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                                      If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.






                                      share|improve this answer














                                      When you look in /etc/mtab, do you see that the device has been mounted with the "flush" option?



                                      If so, this could be the cause of the problem (it was for me). Just unmount the device and remount it, it shouldn't be set by default.







                                      share|improve this answer













                                      share|improve this answer




                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Mar 23 '14 at 11:30









                                      GarfieldElCatGarfieldElCat

                                      111 bronze badge




                                      111 bronze badge















                                      • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                        – Ben Lutgens
                                        Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                                      • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                        – A.Danischewski
                                        Oct 28 '15 at 17:07












                                      • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                        – Jenny O'Reilly
                                        Sep 23 '17 at 12:38

















                                      • The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                        – Ben Lutgens
                                        Mar 24 '14 at 17:52











                                      • @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                        – A.Danischewski
                                        Oct 28 '15 at 17:07












                                      • When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                        – Jenny O'Reilly
                                        Sep 23 '17 at 12:38
















                                      The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                      – Ben Lutgens
                                      Mar 24 '14 at 17:52





                                      The flush option is set by default, any way to stop this?

                                      – Ben Lutgens
                                      Mar 24 '14 at 17:52













                                      @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                      – A.Danischewski
                                      Oct 28 '15 at 17:07






                                      @ Ben Lutgens - Yes, you can put your own entry in /etc/fstab that doesn't have the flush options. Use sudo blkid to find the relevant device UUID and put an entry such as UUID="your device uuid here" /mnt/<your mount point here> uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022 0 0. Change the uid, gid to match the userid and groupid of the normal user that you use (as found by getent passwd <your user>).

                                      – A.Danischewski
                                      Oct 28 '15 at 17:07














                                      When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                      – Jenny O'Reilly
                                      Sep 23 '17 at 12:38





                                      When I do this, all that changes is that I get no more progress bar for the copying and the copying only seems to really kick in/finish when I try to unmount the device and it tells me "don't unplug until operation is finished".

                                      – Jenny O'Reilly
                                      Sep 23 '17 at 12:38











                                      0



















                                      I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                                      share|improve this answer





























                                        0



















                                        I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                                        share|improve this answer



























                                          0















                                          0











                                          0









                                          I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.






                                          share|improve this answer














                                          I had some problems also with transfer rate on a WD external disk, after opening it in a windows SO, i always used LINUX, after that the transfer rate was like 1.5mb/s than i unmount the external hard drive runed dmesg there it was saying that sdb1 it was unporperly unmounted, runed a fsck, that made a few repairs and after that 20mb/s of transfer rate again when copiyng from sda to external disk. fsck is always a risk if you have data, but it worked for me, with no data loss.







                                          share|improve this answer













                                          share|improve this answer




                                          share|improve this answer










                                          answered Nov 9 '15 at 10:36









                                          anymamundyanymamundy

                                          1




                                          1
























                                              -2



















                                              I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                              cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                              cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                              I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                              share|improve this answer































                                                -2



















                                                I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                                cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                                cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                                I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                                share|improve this answer





























                                                  -2















                                                  -2











                                                  -2









                                                  I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                                  cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                                  cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                                  I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.






                                                  share|improve this answer
















                                                  I also had this problem, but I use the cp command and you update your usb stick in seconds;



                                                  cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/Audiousbsti
                                                  cp -r -u /home/user/Muziek/ /media/user/4F49-4A65/


                                                  I think it is a very late answer but it is still open.







                                                  share|improve this answer















                                                  share|improve this answer




                                                  share|improve this answer








                                                  edited May 23 '17 at 14:45









                                                  Zanna

                                                  55.7k15 gold badges152 silver badges256 bronze badges




                                                  55.7k15 gold badges152 silver badges256 bronze badges










                                                  answered May 23 '17 at 13:03









                                                  BartBart

                                                  1




                                                  1
























                                                      -3



















                                                      Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                      Hope this helped






                                                      share|improve this answer





























                                                        -3



















                                                        Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                        Hope this helped






                                                        share|improve this answer



























                                                          -3















                                                          -3











                                                          -3









                                                          Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                          Hope this helped






                                                          share|improve this answer














                                                          Okay, I had the same problem for three days and how I managed to backup my 1TB hard drive was by using rsync, I know that it is used for backing up but it got the job done, even when transferring large files I use it to do that job. If you would like to use it with a GUI I suggest installing Grsync which is a graphical version of rsync since rsync runs on the terminal.



                                                          Hope this helped







                                                          share|improve this answer













                                                          share|improve this answer




                                                          share|improve this answer










                                                          answered Dec 28 '17 at 20:57









                                                          PerfectPerfect

                                                          1




                                                          1
























                                                              Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.












                                                              Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.











                                                              Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.





                                                              Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.


                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                                                              Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                                                              Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?