1. Run Vm From Usb 3.0 Flash Drive Drives
2. Buy Usb 3.0 Flash Drive
3. Run Vm From Usb 3.0 Flash Drive Windows 7

Thanks for your input. I tried, but was unable to find the read and write access times of the Sandisk Extreme to compare with an SSD. I did however find the following article which sites the following Amazon user review:“This stick is essentially a single NAND device (probably with multiple die inside) paired with the same controller found on Sandisks U100 SSDs.

While they aren’t the leader of the pack, that controller is obviously FAR better than your standard USB stick flash management controller. So quite literally we have an SSD on a stick here.“I consider these things a steal for the price, a real SSD controller, quality NAND and S.M.A.R.T monitoring capability. I don’t see any problem with the housing either it seems sturdy enough to me and I like the retracting connector (the entire board inside moves, so don’t worry there are no ribbon cables to wear out inside).”Sure enough, TweakTown’s review includes a teardown of the SanDisk drive and confirms the Extreme uses the same controller as SanDisk’s ReadyCache SSDs.Would an SSD controller have any bearing on access times or is that limited by the USB interface? Cd/dvd is lower bandwidth and access times than usb 2.0 which is why I always use usb to install windows.

USB 2.0 will work, but the greater speed of USB 3.0 is highly preferable. 32GB or greater is recommended if you want to fit anything beyond the operating system on the drive. The increase in capacity is relatively inexpensive ($5 difference between 16 and 32 GB)! May 29, 2014  Virtual machines are usually restricted to a single box, but Portable VirtualBox lets you install VMs on a flash drive so you can run your PC-in-a-PC on any PC.

I haven't even had a cd drive for 5+ years. You can't install windows on usb. English pre league.

Run Vm From Usb 3.0 Flash Drive Drives

Only portable versions. You could install programs though, I've ran stuff even off slower usb 2.0 and it was slower loading times since it's limited to 30MB/s but wasn't too bad. The access times are still faster than a hdd but slower than a sata ssd because of the mobo's usb controller.Testing my usb 2.0 4gb flash drive on hd tune, I got.7 ms access times, my ssd 128gb gets.06 (on as ssd benchmark) and my hdd 500gb 7200rpm blue, 16.4 ms.Oh btw cd/dvd access times are 100+. Hi there,Thanks for your feedback. If a USB has better access times than a HDD then it is still in contention to be used an SSD alternative.You said 'You could install programs though, I've ran stuff even off slower usb 2.0 and it was slower loading times since it's limited to 30MB/s but wasn't too bad'Please take into account the Sandisk Extreme 32GB has been independently tested to exceed 200MB/s write speeds. Considering you have run programs from a USB 2.0 drive and weren't overtly dissatisfied, I am thinking I will be very happy with Sandisk Extreme when used for the same purpose.

When you get hd tune, get the free version, not the free trial for pro. Or you can use as ssd benchmark which will have read/write sequential, 4k, 4k-64, along with access times. Hd tune just only does read sequential and access times.His flash drive is on the benchmarks you posted.Aatje run as ssd benchmark on your flash drive.OK, I will.

Thanks for the tip. I think a lot information is already available here: here and hereNote the third link (SSD copy benchmark) where aatje92's 16GB S102Pro is right at the bottom of the list as opposed to the Extreme which is at the top. The Extreme is 10x faster at copying iso files! Yes you will be satisfied.

I was really just saying I can't give first hand experience with 3.0 but it is possible to install stuff onto usb and it should be faster than a hdd. I do have 3.0 but no 3.0 devices. The usb with ssd contollers should be better than the others. This has to do with better data management. I'd be curious to know what access times you get.When I buy a Sandisk Extreme along with the HD Tune software I will let you know.do you tested it and what are the results? Really appreciate if you can share the results with us. The main problem with USB 3.0 flash drives and using it as a boot device for an OS revolves around the type of NAND memory used and the controller.

I've been running various SSD drives in my laptops for about 18 months now and get blazing speed for my hosts and the VMware VMs I run under the host. I recently read about Mushkins new SSD thumb drive and purchased it. While not as fast as I had hoped, it has very good random read/write 4k speeds compared to regular USB 3.0 thumb drives. I also bought a SANDisk Extreme 64 GB and was very impressed with the speed of this USB 3.0 thumb drive.Bottom line is I am now running my main VM instance on the Mushkin SSD thumb drive and am happy with the performance. Below is an e-mail I sent to a friend concerning the disk benchmarks of various devices I have:-In my never ending quest to find the fastest USB 3.0 flash drives. I bought 2 more:SANDisk Extreme 64GB USB 3.0Patriot Supersonic Magnum 128GB USB 3.0I ran the CrystalDiskMark performance test against them as well as the Corsair Voyager GTs we have (the previous fastest) and the new Mushkin SSD flash drive I bought the other week.

For comparison purposes, I also bench marked my OCZ 4 (SATA III) which is of course the fastest.Some interesting numbers, especially on the random writes. The Corsair Voyager GT is blazing on reads but sucks on the random writes. It seems the SSD technology does much better on writes and high queue depths. I was disappointed on the Mushkin SSD thumb drive, not as good as I would have thought for a flash drive with a SSD controller.I had read good things about the SanDisk Extreme thumb drive, this is the new champion for a non-SSD flash drive. Your question is really the same as the op and was already answered. Get a flash drive that uses a ssd controller and it may perform better than a hdd.

Not all flash drives are created equal and vary largely in performance. You really need to look up benchmarks before you buy and there was one posted here as well.ok i went back and read that article. But how does an ssd improve a usb 3's capabilities? So far i gather that 3.0s are faster than any hdd (which makes me wonder how theyre still on the market) if thats the case, why arent these more practical? Are there any that you can install internally?i mean, what i'd like to do is just get a 32g ssd to run my os, and just have a couple of these babies as seperate drives.

Buy Usb 3.0 Flash Drive

Don't confuse a ssd and a flash drive that uses a ssd controller. You could also just get an external ssd which will be a sata ssd with a usb adapter. Typically a flash drive has a cheap simple data controller and having a more complex ssd controller that manages the data a lot better will give you much better performance. You will see even different ssd controllers will vary greatly in performance.All 3.0 are not faster. There are some that are even slower than 2.0 despite being 3.0, and this is even stated in the article. This also means that they can be slower than hdds. Hdds are still here because price per GB.

Run Vm From Usb 3.0 Flash Drive Windows 7

Usb is an external connection hence only external devices.