I was going to mention this in another of my posts, but it would have been a non sequitor, so just for anyone who's wondered, I will mention that although it was a bit of a nuisance trying to figure out how to get IFD to recognize my USB drive (setting the USB 1.1 option did it in my case--don't worry, it still works at USB 2.0 speeds), it's well worth it.
Using the combination of BIOS Direct for the source drive (installed in the system) and the USB (IFD's drivers) for the destination drive was almost 2x faster (1hr 20min vs 2hr 30min) to complete the copy than using the computer's BIOS for both. The approximate transfer rate was 20 MB/s with IFD drivers and above 10 MB/s with BIOS. YMMV, of course.
Worth using IFD's drivers (BIOS Direct+USB) over BIOS driver
-
mjnelson99
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Worth using IFD's drivers (BIOS Direct+USB) over BIOS driver
Sometimes IFL can be faster than IFD.
It varies with different computers and might
need other settings from what you used with IFD.
It might be worth a test.
Mary
On 9/15/2012 7:40 PM, shahrukh wrote:
> I was going to mention this in another of my posts, but it would have been a non sequitor, so just for anyone who's wondered, I will mention that although it was a bit of a nuisance trying to figure out how to get IFD to recognize my USB drive (setting the USB 1.1 option did it in my case--don't worry, it still works at USB 2.0 speeds), it's well worth it.
>
> Using the combination of BIOS Direct for the source drive (installed in the system) and the USB (IFD's drivers) for the destination drive was almost 2x faster (1hr 20min vs 2hr 30min) to complete the copy than using the computer's BIOS for both. The approximate transfer rate was 20 MB/s with IFD drivers and above 10 MB/s with BIOS. YMMV, of course.
>
>
It varies with different computers and might
need other settings from what you used with IFD.
It might be worth a test.
Mary
On 9/15/2012 7:40 PM, shahrukh wrote:
> I was going to mention this in another of my posts, but it would have been a non sequitor, so just for anyone who's wondered, I will mention that although it was a bit of a nuisance trying to figure out how to get IFD to recognize my USB drive (setting the USB 1.1 option did it in my case--don't worry, it still works at USB 2.0 speeds), it's well worth it.
>
> Using the combination of BIOS Direct for the source drive (installed in the system) and the USB (IFD's drivers) for the destination drive was almost 2x faster (1hr 20min vs 2hr 30min) to complete the copy than using the computer's BIOS for both. The approximate transfer rate was 20 MB/s with IFD drivers and above 10 MB/s with BIOS. YMMV, of course.
>
>
-
mjnelson99
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Worth using IFD's drivers (BIOS Direct+USB) over BIOS driver
P.S. I do always validate.
On 9/15/2012 9:01 PM, mjnelson99 wrote:
> Sometimes IFL can be faster than IFD.
>
> It varies with different computers and might
> need other settings from what you used with IFD.
>
> It might be worth a test.
> Mary
>
> On 9/15/2012 7:40 PM, shahrukh wrote:
>> I was going to mention this in another of my posts, but it would have been a non sequitor, so just for anyone who's wondered, I will mention that although it was a bit of a nuisance trying to figure out how to get IFD to recognize my USB drive (setting the USB 1.1 option did it in my case--don't worry, it still works at USB 2.0 speeds), it's well worth it.
>>
>> Using the combination of BIOS Direct for the source drive (installed in the system) and the USB (IFD's drivers) for the destination drive was almost 2x faster (1hr 20min vs 2hr 30min) to complete the copy than using the computer's BIOS for both. The approximate transfer rate was 20 MB/s with IFD drivers and above 10 MB/s with BIOS. YMMV, of course.
>>
>>
>
>
On 9/15/2012 9:01 PM, mjnelson99 wrote:
> Sometimes IFL can be faster than IFD.
>
> It varies with different computers and might
> need other settings from what you used with IFD.
>
> It might be worth a test.
> Mary
>
> On 9/15/2012 7:40 PM, shahrukh wrote:
>> I was going to mention this in another of my posts, but it would have been a non sequitor, so just for anyone who's wondered, I will mention that although it was a bit of a nuisance trying to figure out how to get IFD to recognize my USB drive (setting the USB 1.1 option did it in my case--don't worry, it still works at USB 2.0 speeds), it's well worth it.
>>
>> Using the combination of BIOS Direct for the source drive (installed in the system) and the USB (IFD's drivers) for the destination drive was almost 2x faster (1hr 20min vs 2hr 30min) to complete the copy than using the computer's BIOS for both. The approximate transfer rate was 20 MB/s with IFD drivers and above 10 MB/s with BIOS. YMMV, of course.
>>
>>
>
>