>copying files from over 9000 miles away is significantly faster than copying them to a flash drive

>>106000123 (OP)
The absolute state of t*ch

>>106000123 (OP)
It is against the jew's best interest to give you faster storage speeds.

>>106000123 (OP)
Why would distance matter? Does the water at the spigot come out faster than at the end of the garden hose?

>>106000486

Lmfao data isn't a pressure system. It's more like a car going from point A to point B so yes, distance literally does matter. It's why CDNs exist.

>>106000123 (OP)
>flash drive in 2025
https://a.co/d/8tp1Con
Have fun grandpa

>>106000123 (OP)
Someone at Microsoft actually looked at this and thought "yep, that looks beautiful, release it"

Based USB 2 enjoyer

>>106000516
It's a very rare need
I'm installing windows server on an old laptop and none of the drivers werked

>>106000123 (OP)
>You are too poor for a cheap external SATA SSD
HAHA

>>106000649
Even then, most people do dumb shit like low transmission rate cables and ports on their machine.

>*uses the cheapest flash drive with a 22+ year old data transfer protocol*
>hwy slow

you had to install a windong service pack to get those blazing usb speeds in 2003

>>106000685
and they were not blazing, usb 2 speeds sucked compared to firewire on an external hdd

>>106000649
actually i just rememberd i have one inside my desk that I didn't think to use, use it as a ventoy thing to hold all my linuxes
oh well it's over now

>>106000123 (OP)
usb 2 maxes out at 35MBps but most of it is protocol overhead

Then there's the problem of everything being reported in both megabits and megabytes per second.

>>106000123 (OP)
it's not even when copying to a flash drive but extracting from a zip file regular explorer is shit and took forever when 7-zip did the same thing in seconds

>>106000123 (OP)
The searching indexing on my W11 machine is fucked. It searched everything just find on my server, but gave up when I I searched the same folder on my nvme ssd.

>>106000981
Yeah it's broken
>>106000123 (OP)
Windows copy function is shit and bugged (Sar...), but so is your USB stick (most likely). Most USB sticks are total shit.

>>106000194
>>106000123 (OP)

>>106000123 (OP)
> have a server
> sandy bridge
> USB 2.0 and gigabit ethernet
> 480Mbps theoretical vs 1000Mbps practical
> computing.bat
Copied it over samba and it was faster.

>>106000498
>confuses throughput with latency
I hate tech illiterates

>>106000579
>windows server
Kek

keep in mind that over usb you literally have one (1) duplex data pin and over ethernet you have 4 simplex pins


you are now aware why eSATA was a thing and died because of normies. at least SATA has 2 simplex pins

>>106001122

Latency is a factor in thoroughput dipshit. It all has to travel the extra distance. There isn't "water" constantly waiting for you the moment you release more pressure at the exit point.

>>106000876
That's just a slow flash drive, even USB 2.0 can go faster than 9MB/s, it'll do like double that at least.

>>106001132
>oh nooooo those milliseconds when transferring 100GB totally matter

>>106001103
the files in question included network drivers for my computer
I am online now

everyone in this thread is retarded. including me. humanity must be destroyed

>>106001166
You added nothing to the thread tho. That makes you the most retardedest

>>106001152

Yes it does add up

>>106000123 (OP)
The fault lies with you anon.

>>106001152
They matter. It's why gzip exists and why some tools use udp instead of tcp, etc...

>>106001208
>>106001241
>OP's post is about transferring gigabytes of stuff
>B-BUT LOOK IF YOU DOWNLOAD A MINUSCULE FILE THEN LATENCY WILL MATTER A LOT TO THE FINAL DOWNLOAD TIME

>>106001163
>pass user
>povertycomputer
pottery

>>106001268

A file isn't sent all at once you moron

>>106001273
this is my old ass laptop I have some plans for it

>>106001282
"all at once" has multiple meanings, and you're clearly using the wrong one

>>106001283
hopefully a dumpster

>>106001273
>implying you should use your best machine to browse this shithole
during a good while i used a fagbook from 2006 to do that
then i bought a workstation, so thats the computer i arigap now

>>106000123 (OP)
>he doesn't respect the privacy of his data
ngmi

>>106001305
>my computer was single use
lol

your usb from 2008

>>106001311
no, i also scraped from the web
it was my internet facing machine
now its what my old dt is

>>106001302
its a good computer dude...

>>106001329
>alienware

>>106001345
my main computor is one too :)

I like my upgraded 2.5Gbit home network.

>>106000123 (OP)
microsd are a crime
wd green ssd are crap
NAND and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>106000498
>It's like a tube NO! it's like a highway
Yes, and if 100 trucks leave from DC on Monday all the Epstein files can be in LA by Tuesday, but they're still not going to publish them. The latency isn't the problem.

>>106001487
it's a series of tubes

>>106001298
>>106001487

https://www.scaleway.com/en/blog/understanding-network-latency/

>While the concept of bandwidth is easily understood by most IT engineers, latency has always been something of a mystery. At first glance, it might seem that it doesn't matter how long it takes for a chunk of data to cross the Atlantic ocean, as long as we have enough bandwidth between the source and destination. What's the big deal if our 100GE link is one kilometer or one thousand kilometers long, it's still 100GE isn't it?
>This would be correct if we never experienced any packet loss in the network. Latency impact is all about flow and congestion control (which these days is mainly part of TCP). When one end sends a chunk of data to the other, it usually needs an acknowledgment that the data has been received by the other end. If no acknowledgment is received, the source end must resend the data. The greater the latency, the longer it takes to detect a data loss.

You retards don't understand how TCP works. While this isn't the biggest limiting factor, it is immediate overhead that grants an instantaneous advantage to a simple USB connection.

>>106001566
Who was talking about TCP? LMAO

>>106001578
are you downloading with UDP? kek

>>106001122
the internet would be slower if everyone just downloaded content over ocean each time

>>106000123 (OP)
Flash drives heat up. They slow down to mitigate that. An external SSD will be much faster.

>>106001578

>DUDE I DOWNLOAD CORRUPTED GARBAGE THAT CAN'T WORK

hahah anon good one!

>>106001566
>Packet loss
Not a real issue until bandwidth is near data size. Go on, send some packets to AUS. I got all of mine.
https://packetlosstest.com/

>>106001726
wtf how do they know where to go

>>106001726

We are talking about a large file download so yes, we would be "at size." Why are you faggots going so hard on this no in no universe is transmitting data from Australia to England going to have the natural advantage of a straight cable. That was the original point. It isn't a fucking pressure system it's transfer just like sending a package, which is why they call them PACKETS not fucking electricity or water.

>>106000681
Reminds me of that time I heard someone complain how slow their external SSD is while it's hooked up to a USB 1.1 extension cable. I'm so fucking tired of retards its actually unreal.

>>106000123 (OP)
>flash drive
>doesn't say what kind
>/g/ - retards anonymous
Use a fucking SSD you dumb cunt.

>>106000123 (OP)
Flash drives can be pretty fast, but everyone buys $12 ones off Amazon so guess what, you get what you pay for.

why don't they just make usb faster

>>106000564
usb2 maxes at ~40mb/sec THOUGH

>>106001908
It's not surprising that downloading a file over 9000 miles is faster than moving it 2".

>>106001367
>4083MB
Tell me that's a speccy glitch and not you being retarded enough to buy a video card with four gigs of vram.

>>106002915
it's just speccy doing its thang

>>106000123 (OP)
Flash drive is just a microSD card with a controller on it.
SD card is slow

>>106000205
Do you know why?

>>106003192
Cold, local storage is a no-no. Cloud storage is what you should be using.

>>106000123 (OP)
>series o tubes is faster than your faucet
what did you expect

>>106003187
Flash memory cards like SD have controllers in them just like USB flash drives do, they're just shaped differently and use another connector and maybe different protocols.

>>106000123 (OP)
Along the same lines, how the FUCK can download speeds be faster than the storage medium they are being downloaded to?

>>106003717
they get cached in memory before being written out

>>106000123 (OP)
old ass sd cards or shitty pendrives are like that, sd cards actually have write class on them