Idle USB devices slow down active ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ulysees
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Usb
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the performance impact of idle USB devices on the operation of active USB devices, particularly in the context of benchmarking an external hard drive. Participants explore the technical implications of mixing different USB standards and the potential overhead caused by multiple connected devices.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports a significant drop in performance of an external hard drive when several idle peripherals are connected, questioning if this is normal and why it occurs.
  • Another participant explains that connecting a USB 1.x device to a USB 2.0 hub can force the hub to operate in USB 1.x mode, leading to performance loss, and asks if this is the case for the original poster.
  • A participant expresses surprise that idle devices could affect performance and questions if the bus would be much slower if it were forced into USB 1.1 mode.
  • The original poster confirms mixing USB 1.1 and 2.0 devices and mentions that using a Bluetooth mouse further slows down performance.
  • One participant suggests that the issue may relate to the concept of interrupts, proposing that the overhead from polling multiple devices could impact performance even if they are inactive.
  • Another participant elaborates on the differences between USB standards, noting that ideally, idle devices should not affect the bandwidth of active devices on a homogenous USB bus, and discusses the implications of system architecture on performance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the extent to which idle devices impact performance, with some suggesting that it should not happen under ideal conditions, while others point to practical limitations and system architecture as potential factors. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact cause of the performance drop.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions about device compatibility and system architecture, including the potential for a single internal hub to affect multiple ports and the concept of "quarantining" devices to maintain performance.

Ulysees
Messages
515
Reaction score
0
I was running a benchmark test on an external hard drive, and to my surprise the presence of several other peripherals greatly reduced the performance, even though they were all idle (keyboard, mouse, smartphone, external cd drive).

It went down to a 20% of normal performance. Is this normal?

Why is it happening to such an extent?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
If you have a USB 2.0 hub, and you connect even a single USB 1.x device to it, the hub cannot operate in USB 2.0 mode anymore, and you will lose significant performance. It's a good idea to avoid mixing USB 1.x and USB 2.0 devices on the same port. Are you doing that?

- Warren
 
Even when they're just sitting there doing nothing? That's what surprised me.

If they force the bus to USB 1.1 mode, then wouldn't everything be much, much slower?
 
And yes, I am mixing 1.1 with 2, I know for sure the smartphone is 1.1, not sure about the keyboard and mouse.

Also I tried a bluetooth mouse, which made things even slower. Looking at the devices, bluethooh is attached to an internal usb port.
 
I've been out of PC hardware for a while, but this may be analogous to the concept of interrupts. The more devices that you have with the potential of demanding system resources, the more "polling" the controller must do to ensure that all the devices are served. Try connecting only the USB 2 HD and benchmark it. Then connect one more USB 2 device (powered but inactive) and benchmark the drive again. I'll bet the benchmark falls due to the overhead involved in polling the other device, even if it is not active.
 
The two standards (USB 1.x and 2.0) have entirely different frame timing and signalling requirements. USB 2.0 devices are backwards-compatible, but USB is a bus, and all of the devices on a bus segment have to use the same frame timing.

On a homogenous USB bus (all 2.0 devices, say), the addition of a new (idle) device should not affect the bandwidth of any other devices. The USB standard allows bulk packets (the kind used by mass storage devices) to use up all of the remaining time in a frame, after higher-priority packets like isochronous and control are sent. If the other devices are idle, they should not affect bandwidth at all.

Newer versions of Windows actually alert you when a 2.0 hub has reverted to 1.x mode, so you know you're going to lose performance. Some computers have only one internal hub which services all of the ports, meaning that attaching a single 1.x device to the computer will slow down every other 2.0 device attached to any other port. (Mice, keyboards, and other low-speed interface devices are generally 1.x.) Some computers, however, have multiple independent hubs.

Hubs can "promote" 1.x devices to 2.0 devices, as well. In other words, imagine that you attach a USB 2.0 hub to a port on your USB 2.0 computer, and then attach all your 1.x devices to that hub. The link between the hub and all the devices will be 1.x, but the link between the computer and hub will still be 2.0. Sometimes you can use this to your advantage by "quarantining" all of your 1.x devices to a single hub, so your computer's internal hub(s) can keep operating at 2.0.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
6K