p2cms vs. shotput pro, etc

A

adutch

Member
i've found p2cms very slow when transferring from p2 card to usb drive. is shotput faster, better? are there other software that verifies transfers? that's all I'm doing -- moving files to another drive.
 
p2cms probably doesn't have anything to do with your slow speed. It's your computer and they way you are ingesting and storing your media. It will take longer to transfer data to a usb drive than it does to transfer to a SATA or raid drive. Also the speed at which the drives spin is also a factor.
 
Last edited:
Yeah is that Mac or PC? Mac is much better with Firewire than USB. PC is USB but yeah the faster the drive the faster the transfer. And where from? P2 card slot on a computer? Camera?

Noah
 
Wait a moment?!? P2cms does more than just preview my p2data? I had no idea someone care to enlighten me what it is capable of?
 
adutch said:
i've found p2cms very slow when transferring from p2 card to usb drive. is shotput faster, better? are there other software that verifies transfers? that's all I'm doing -- moving files to another drive.
Click to expand...

At this level P2CMS is simply COPYING the data, very efficiently I might add, I did a HD-to-HD copy test, it does it fairly quickly using native block IO. So the overhead in the "COPY" introduced by P2CMS in negligible.

Your performance bottleneck is in the transfer and not in the program doing it.

I bet the "cp" command would yeld identical results, buffered or unbuffered.
Check that your USB drive is not running at 1.1/1.0 12mbps speed but at 480mbps of 2.0.
 
you can also verify files. you get a read out at the end. I've gotten corrupted clips (pixels in a frame) on usually 6 out of 60 files. I write down the file names are re-export them. it just takes too long though.
 
DJDecay said:
At this level P2CMS is simply COPYING the data, very efficiently I might add, I did a HD-to-HD copy test, it does it fairly quickly using native block IO. So the overhead in the "COPY" introduced by P2CMS in negligible.

Your performance bottleneck is in the transfer and not in the program doing it.

I bet the "cp" command would yeld identical results, buffered or unbuffered.
Check that your USB drive is not running at 1.1/1.0 12mbps speed but at 480mbps of 2.0.
Click to expand...


it's a usb 2.0 drive. my laptop only has usb. maybe the laptop isn't usb 2.0! I'll check
 
adutch said:
it's a usb 2.0 drive. my laptop only has usb. maybe the laptop isn't usb 2.0! I'll check
Click to expand...

Its never a good idea to transfer data between two tethered devices like USB or firewire directly. As in

Copying a file from your Firewire Drive to USB Drive is going to be slower than (there are exceptional condition) Copying that file to your internal HD, Then copying that to the USB drive (seriously).

By the same token, it's slower to upload files to filckr or facebook from an SD card or a USB floppy drive then it is from the internal harddrive after copying them.

One would think its faster, since its only logical that bytes going from place A to place B should move faster, instead of them going to place X first. However given the I/O structure of a x86 machine (Mac/PC) and its I/O bus, and the state of their drivers and I/O unfortunately the inbuilt SATA HD will win - (Not Every Time, Not Under All Conditions - but under most typical ones), even though you're reading and writing the stuff twice. The only system I can think of that does not have the same driver contention issue is Linux, but it can still have laptop I/O hardware and chipset contention issues.

So schema one:
A ----> B (is slower than)
schema two:
A ----> INTERNAL HD -----> B

in a typical tethered device setup, esp in a laptop computer.

Because in reality it actually looks like this.

INTERNAL HD <-----> (A,B)

Where A and B are on the same I/O path and wait for eachother, while the HD gets it's one dedicated and direct I/O path.

P.S. - No I did not post this so you can google something and pick this apart.

The intent is to help the poster asking the question.

P.P.S. XBench is not a very reliable OSX disk I/O performance tool, especially on newer chipsets and CPU's. (in case this ever comes up)
 
Last edited:
I'm just going from pcmcia slot on a PC laptop with usb 2.0 to a usb 2.0 fw drive (which also has fw400 and esata but my laptop only has usb 2.0). I'm using p2CMS in the process. 1.5 hours to move 12 gigs. ouch. laptop has 500 mb ram and 1.6ghz cpu. A bit dated. before using p2cms it took 13 minutes to move 12gb.
I'm guess my laptop is slow...... and p2cms was probably written for a newer computer.
 
1.5 hours to move 12 gigs? That's... not right. You've got something seriously wrong there.

In the worst possible case, it should be no more than 12 minutes. In a properly-configured modern laptop situation, 12 gigs should copy over in about six minutes.
 
adutch said:
Llaptop has 500 mb ram and 1.6ghz cpu.
Click to expand...

Could you post the exact model of your laptop and 2 more things.

1. The exact version of the OS you are using.
2. And How much space do you have left on your primary laptop drive.

512MB of ram = small disk cache, small cache = slow performance.
If its reporting 500, that means 12 got abstracted for video ram by the built-in GFX adapter.
 
Barry_Green said:
12 gigs should copy over in about six minutes.
Click to expand...
I've only gotten those speeds with a Duel, never from CAM (usb nor firewire) on a (MBP 1,1) and on a (MBP 2,1). 1:1 ratio gig per min of x-fer is all I've seen everywhere. Have to check everything again, if you're getting 1:2 ratio I need to re-check the setups (R-Series cards only @ 16GB - HVX200PJu (non-a) firmware 4.06-00-0.00 and others in case you'd ask)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top