Copying files between external drives

[michael c]

I am making another copy of all my Virtual Instrument Sample Library samples. My current library samples are in an OWC 'box' that houses 4, 1Tb Samsung SSDs and connects to my MacPro (late 2013 trashcan) via thunderbolt.

I bought a 4Tb external Samsung SSD T7 that runs on USB 3.2 and created 4 volumes on the APSF drive. This way I could organize and keep the different samples in the same way that I have them on the OWC box, thinking if my main OWC dies and I am on a deadline, I can just hook up my back up drive and get to work.

It has taken over 11 hours to back up 500 gb of samples from the 1st SSD to the 1st volume on the Back Up SSD. Does that seem right or am I doing something wrong? I realize USB isn't as fast as thunderbolt, but this long of a time seems extreme.

Thanks for any help.

[Darryl Ramm]

Details would help.

What exact 1TB Samsung SSDs? What exact enclosure? Are the drives configured as RAID in the enclosure? How exactly did you copy the files? How large are those files on disk? What are the exact full UNIX paths/mount points of these different partitions.

What is the firmware versions of all the SSDs? Are they up to date?

Generally I would KISS, there should be no reason to complicate things with separate partitions and mounting stuff. If needed you should be able to find a way of doing this that only needs one partition.

A good measure of disk space used by files, much better than relying on the Finder, is:

$ du -sm pathname (to show files/folders in MiB)

Check where you are copying stuff to has not gotten bigger than where you copied it from... can happen with symbolic links etc.

and look at your disk I/O with:

$ iostat -w 1

Unfortunately the trashcan has crippled Thunderbolt 2 I/O to start with, and the likely single PCIe 2 lane slowness to each M.2 card if you are using a OWC Express 4M2 (i.e. you've now made that M.2 storage about the same performance or even less than a Samsung T7 on a USB 3.2 Gen 2 link). And the Trashcan only has USB 3.0/USB 3.1 Gen 1 i.e. 5 Gb/s and does not have USB 3.1 Gen 2 aka 3.2 Gen 2 aka 10 Gb/s so you'll not be seeing anywhere near it's maximum performance. But I'd hope you see 100MB/sec or few x 100MB/sec speeds, largely depending on file sizes and how you've done the copy.

A guaranteed way of borking disk I/O rates is to unintentionally have a cloud share folder set up and be copying stuff to or from it.

[smurfyou]

Finder really bogs down with copying a large number of files regardless of total size. IME.

You could use something like Carbon Copy Cloner or Forklift to get better performance. (Without getting into Terminal)

[michael c]

I have CCC. Do you think that would be faster than just dragging files from external disk to external disk.

Originally Posted by smurfyou

Finder really bogs down with copying a large number of files regardless of total size. IME.

You could use something like Carbon Copy Cloner or Forklift to get better performance. (Without getting into Terminal)

[EmilILönneberga]

The Mac Pro 6,1 only provides USB 3.0 ports, therefore the new Samsung SSD will be limited to copy files at (theoretically) 5 Gb/s.

Most of the TB3 docks provide USB 3.1 / 3.2 (Gen 2, 10Gb/s)
You can connect a TB3 dock via the apple TB2 / TB3 adapter and will be able to use the USB 3.2 (10Gb/s) ports without limitations

But even with that kind of limitations, 500GB should be copied within 30 minutes if the other drive involved isn't slower.

Check both of the drives with BM Disk Speed Test.
Your new Samsung drive should be around 350-400 MB/s R/W and I assume the OWC provides SATA 3 slots so those drives should have around 400-500 MB/s R/W (assuming those are proper SSDs)

The 6,1 maxes out at around 1450 MB/s R/W via thunderbolt and internally.

While I agree that the finder can be tricky at copying larger files sometimes, 500GB should not be a problem at all. Even 4TB will work. It sometimes just doesn't like to be 'stopped'.

Edit: Why APFS? I would stay clear of it for sample / session / audio / video drives. Use HFS+ instead. APFS is great for system volumes.

[michael c]

Thanks for the reply. I did try BM Disk Speed Test and they came in very similar to your specs, except the OWC disks are closer to 350-400GB. The OWC dock is Thunderbolt 2 with up to 20 Gb/s x1 but the USB ports on my Mac are only 3.0 even though the new 4T external disk is 3.2

I was wondering if using CCC would be faster than using the Finder (dragging and dropping)?

I used APFS because I was told that just works better these days. I'm running Monterey on this Mac computer.

Since my Samples are on the OWC dock and are Samsung SSD 860 EVO disks (4 of them), I thought it might be easier turning the new 4Tb SSD disk into 4 volumes for organization and also if one of the dock SSDs died, I could just plug in the back up and get to work if on a deadline. Hoping that never comes up. :>)

Originally Posted by EmilILönneberga

The Mac Pro 6,1 only provides USB 3.0 ports, therefore the new Samsung SSD will be limited to copy files at (theoretically) 5 Gb/s.

Most of the TB3 docks provide USB 3.1 / 3.2 (Gen 2, 10Gb/s)
You can connect a TB3 dock via the apple TB2 / TB3 adapter and will be able to use the USB 3.2 (10Gb/s) ports without limitations

But even with that kind of limitations, 500GB should be copied within 30 minutes if the other drive involved isn't slower.

Check both of the drives with BM Disk Speed Test.
Your new Samsung drive should be around 350-400 MB/s R/W and I assume the OWC provides SATA 3 slots so those drives should have around 400-500 MB/s R/W (assuming those are proper SSDs)

The 6,1 maxes out at around 1450 MB/s R/W via thunderbolt and internally.

While I agree that the finder can be tricky at copying larger files sometimes, 500GB should not be a problem at all. Even 4TB will work. It sometimes just doesn't like to be 'stopped'.

Edit: Why APFS? I would stay clear of it for sample / session / audio / video drives. Use HFS+ instead. APFS is great for system volumes.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by EmilILönneberga

Edit: Why APFS? I would stay clear of it for sample / session / audio / video drives. Use HFS+ instead. APFS is great for system volumes.

No. Bad advice, any SSD should be using APFS, it is designed for SSDs, HFS+ is not. And APFS is a more advanced, more robust file system. Not that you would see issues in a read mostly file system like a sample drive (you could on busy session drives), but just use the modern file system designed for what you are doing.

[EmilILönneberga]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

No. Bad advice, any SSD should be using APFS, it is designed for SSDs, HFS+ is not. And APFS is a more advanced, more robust file system. Not that you would see issues in a read mostly file system like a sample drive (you could on busy session drives), but just use the modern file system designed for what you are doing.

HFS+ has been used on apple SSDs for many years. It's not that it turned sour out of a sudden (and it probably won't until 2040).
At this point there is no real disadvantage when using HFS+ as an audio drive. But you'll lose backwards compatibility and network compatibility with AFP.
This can be important when using an older Mac like the 6,1.

Upgrading the drives to APFS when switching to a newer Mac is always possible.

I don't wanna de-rail this thread and I see where you're coming from, but most of the APFS benefits are relevant for anything macOS related.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by EmilILönneberga

HFS+ has been used on apple SSDs for many years. It's not that it turned sour out of a sudden (and it probably won't until 2040).
At this point there is no real disadvantage when using HFS+ as an audio drive. But you'll lose backwards compatibility and network compatibility with AFP.
This can be important when using an older Mac like the 6,1.

Upgrading the drives to APFS when switching to a newer Mac is always possible.

I don't wanna de-rail this thread and I see where you're coming from, but most of the APFS benefits are relevant for anything macOS related.

No. SSDs are very unusual beasts, they can't overwrite data in place, they have to jump through hoops internally to work at all with legacy file systems, and doing so they suffer from side effects like write amplification that slows them down, and adds to drive wear. And a bunch of other subtle/optimization things.

There is absolutely no valid reason to use HFS+ on any SSD other than cases where people need HFS+ compatibility.

And on a busy enough *write* drive it would not be hard show effects of the wrong choice here. Read mostly again you won't notice a difference, but just use the right file system.

Please just stop spreading misinformation/bad suggestions like this.

[EmilILönneberga]

Alright, wrong time, wrong place.

@michael c

check the performance of your OWC enclosure and your new SSD.
Something's off.