Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

This is NOT a solution. Rather it is a question. Further this is a follow-on to this USB information

USB technology is advancing. PCs have been advancing, sometimes, in step as USB progresses.

ALL of you know of these physical port changes occurring over the past 2 decades. AND, most of you know that the items we plug into those ports are ALL OVER THE MAP in how they perform.

This question, I am raising, is because I have seen 3 "new" PCs from people who call on me with a myriad of USB ports on a single PC. It is NOT just the connector technology, but also the physical behavior of these ports. The PCs come with USB2 ports as well as USB3 ports and well as USB-C as well as Thunderbolt ports.

And most of us know that there are several physical characteristics of these ports for the upper limit protocol that can be inserted into a system's port. Thus USB flash/drive selection is important should one want to get the maximum benefit a port can deliver. Today, the only way one would know is by "eyeballing": either looking at the port for a descriptor or by looking at the owners manual for diagramed descriptors.

This is already leading to various problems is how units are used by the system and has already been seen in unit performance behavior depending upon which port it is plugged.

Most users are naive to this physical connection issues, naive to unit behavior issues, and naive to a need to thoroughly understand what they should know to ask when purchasing a new PC.

This leads to the following 3 Questions:

1. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell whether a physical port is USB2 vs USB3?

2. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell whether a physical port's protocol is 3.0/3.1/3.2/3.2-2/4.0/thunderbolt?

3. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell if a device plugged into a USB physical port is a USB1/USB2/USB3/USB4 unit?

Any knowledge you can bring to the table is helpful info to all of us.

@Clarity - terminal commands lsusb -t and lsusb -v will give some information. Pup-SysInfo (under System menu) is also good.

@Clarity :-

I don't know of a specific "Linux" way to tell ports apart. But the accepted way of telling them apart is by "eye-balling" them, certainly.

With the older standard, there seemed to be no consistency. The colour of the internal 'half plastic' tongue could be black or white, or grey. White usually indicated the early USB 1.0 standard (though, not always). USB 2.0, I have seen in grey; black; brown.....even red.

From USB 3.0 onwards, consistency set in.These were always blue, internally....though with 3.0, 3.1 & 3.2, things got a mite confusing.

USB-C are much smaller.....and it doesn't matter which way you plug them in.

USB 4.0, I've heard of.....but so far as I know, no working examples exist in the marketplace as yet. Isn't this what started out life as Apple's "Thunderbolt" ? (It requires at least k5.6 for support, and appears to be mostly for supporting the "tunnelling" of other, earlier protocols...)

Mm-hm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4

STILL confusing..!!!

Mike.

I think the safest thing is to look at the info provided by the owners manual.
In the first few pages it should provide specific info on what port is what.
Example:

.
Notice the amount of info about the USB port on this side of the laptop.

Usually you can find a pdf of the owners manual to put on the computer.
One laptop I have had it already on the computer.

I was afraid of this and is the reason I posted. As the technology of display devices (PCs/AIOs/Laptops/TVs/tablets/etc) advance, we users are facing a dilemma which is only going to get worse if you are trying to have a means of identifying the port-device behaviors we are heading into.

So, when I tried to compare device performance using system tools, I ran into to not-so-obvious dilemma which took couple days to wrap my head around. Helping a user, I showed him how to use a couple commands to "see" how a USB performed. He called me later to report an odd behavior; namely when plugged into one type-A port he was getting great performance and in another bad performance. He thought (and I too, at first) that the manufacturer has sold a lemon. As it turns out, NOT SO! And this is where my USB thread that many of you have seen, started.

@bigpup's images produces one example of this phenom.

This phenom is leading to some very interesting behaviors that will only advance. And we have no system-level tools at this juncture to gather an understanding with some intelligence.

Today, when looking at a USB stick, many DO NOT post which USB protocol it supports (1.1/2/3/3.0/3.1/3.2/3.2.1/3.2.2/etc.). These, each, have port performance "targets" but each individual stick may/may-not PERFORM adequate on one of these port=protocols but will be different on another.

So, we are at a point where it is becoming apparent that some tools are needed to determine the device protocol and the port protocols when "married" (connected) to each other.

Only then, will the user, using system level tools, be able to have a means of knowing if the marriage is what one would expect.

Thus, when running performance tests, we would have a clearer understanding of what is actual in occurence. Further, when helping forum users, this adds another level of consideration when complaints arise because of boot issues from slow/fast to cannot find SFS.

P.S. This also true as Thunderbolt usage increases simultaneous with USB. (remember Betamax vs VHS?)

In my view, the real problem that exists is quite simple. Each new "generation" of USB.....each "improvement" of the standard.....introduces new, and additional protocols & behaviours, while at the same time attempting to maintain compatibility with every single previous generation. Over time, the list of 'protocols' supported is eventually going to become, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Eventually, that huge list is going to HAVE to be rationalised, and 'simplified'.....or else 'understanding' is going to end up taking a back seat to confusion.

(*shrug*)

I think what you're after, Clarity, is some kind of easy-to-use 'system' tool that will inform users, of all skill-levels (be they 'noob' OR 'expert'), in the simplest terms possible, of exactly what any given port is capable of doing/supporting at any given juncture....yes? Am I correct?

AFAIK, such a thing does not exist outside, perhaps, of manufacturer's specialist tools for their own R & D people. Could be an interesting project for someone, though; after all, if somebody can initially write/code it, somebody else can at some point duplicate it.....right?

However, I'm not at all sure that the necessary system libraries yet exist to extract quite the level of detail you're indicating. I don't think even the kernel itself reports that kind of detail.....though I could, of course, be wrong.

It has been known..!

Mike.

ozsouth wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:12 am

@Clarity - terminal commands lsusb -t and lsusb -v will give some information. Pup-SysInfo (under System menu) is also good.

@ozsouth :-

Interesting, Oz.....especially the 'verbose' option.

Mike.

Most forum members know my disdain for USB. It is severly problematiic at best even though useable.

Thunderbolt is better by comparison for some reasons I wont go into here, but its problem is that it is NOT ubiquitous in almost all 64bit platforms ... except Apples.

But USB graduates to USB4 in some/many/most/all 2023 platforms while predictably dragging new issues along.

Here is a video, though comedic, has a large measure of accuracy pertaining to modern USBs.

Enjoy the knowledge

You will find all you USB controller information at:

#ls /sys/bus/usb/devices/usb?
#ls /sys/bus/usb/devices/usb?/speed

Regards

Today, when looking at a USB stick, many DO NOT post which USB protocol it supports (1.1/2/3/3.0/3.1/3.2/3.2.1/3.2.2/etc.). These, each, have port performance "targets" but each individual stick may/may-not PERFORM adequate on one of these port=protocols but will be different on another.

If they do not provide the info on which USB protocol it supports (1.1/2/3/3.0/3.1/3.2/3.2.1/3.2.2/etc.)
I do not buy it.

@Clarity:-

Further to earlier points made, I'm now cognizant of what a Thunderbolt connector actually looks like. Strangely, it's not so unique as everybody seems to make out....

If you know what the port connector for an internal PCI-e x 1 slot looks like, an early Thunderbolt connector (gen-1 or -2) is rather like an "inverted" or negative image of one of these. A USB connector usually has the 'pins' or connectors arranged around the middle, pointing outwards.....whereas Thunderbolt has them arranged around the outside of the port, pointing inwards.

Later Thunderbolt connectors (gen-3 or -4) are far more similar to either USB 3.0, or USB-C. Just to muddy the waters still further, like..!

The step Apple took to make it as fast as it is was all in the actual port-control chipset.....whatever it is that Apple uses as an equivalent to the traditional 'southbridge', being as how this is where USB controllers always used to be situated before everything migrated onto the CPU die itself. And what they've done with the ARM-based 'Apple Silicon' CPUs is anybody's guess....

---------------------------------

I treated myself to another SanDisk USB 3.1 'Ultra' Fit yesterday; already have a pair of these @32 GB. The new purchase is @ 128 GB.

I've just run the DriveSpeed! speed tester on it a few minutes ago. These always run through the HP's USB 3.0/3.1/3.2-enabled USB 3.0 ports. Write speed around 50 MB/s.....read speed around 130 MB/s. For a 'nano'-sized USB thumb drive, those are not speeds to be "sniffed at".....I think many would be quite happy with that level of performance. I know I am.

Mike.

Clarity wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:27 am

This is NOT a solution. Rather it is a question. Further this is a follow-on to this USB information

USB technology is advancing. PCs have been advancing, sometimes, in step as USB progresses.

ALL of you know of these physical port changes occurring over the past 2 decades. AND, most of you know that the items we plug into those ports are ALL OVER THE MAP in how they perform.

This question, I am raising, is because I have seen 3 "new" PCs from people who call on me with a myriad of USB ports on a single PC. It is NOT just the connector technology, but also the physical behavior of these ports. The PCs come with USB2 ports as well as USB3 ports and well as USB-C as well as Thunderbolt ports.

And most of us know that there are several physical characteristics of these ports for the upper limit protocol that can be inserted into a system's port. Thus USB flash/drive selection is important should one want to get the maximum benefit a port can deliver. Today, the only way one would know is by "eyeballing": either looking at the port for a descriptor or by looking at the owners manual for diagramed descriptors.

This is already leading to various problems is how units are used by the system and has already been seen in unit performance behavior depending upon which port it is plugged.

Most users are naive to this physical connection issues, naive to unit behavior issues, and naive to a need to thoroughly understand what they should know to ask when purchasing a new PC.

This leads to the following 3 Questions:

1. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell whether a physical port is USB2 vs USB3?

2. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell whether a physical port's protocol is 3.0/3.1/3.2/3.2-2/4.0/thunderbolt?

3. Does anyone know of a Linux manner to tell if a device plugged into a USB physical port is a USB1/USB2/USB3/USB4 unit?

Any knowledge you can bring to the table is helpful info to all of us.

You can use lsusb but it will spit out an address. This is not very useful for physically locating or identifying it.