HDL_DUMP alternative?

[rob487]

I was looking for a way to transfer game images from my PS2 back to my PC via LAN when I discovered hdl_dump. It works great, with the exception that it only transfers at .90MBps. It took 20 minutes to transfer 1 gig! Is there a way to speed things up a bit? Perhaps another program that can do the same thing? I'm looking for the speeds I get from ExecFTP when I send my mem card exploits. Thanks! (... if not, I guess I can stick to using WinHIIP, but it's just such a hassle to open my computer case all the time!)

[AidenVenis]

The thing is that it's slow. It takes more then an hour to upload an normal game. I did some maths and found out (that when a 100 mb router is used at max speed it takes 40 min to upload minimal) sory guys need to learn more math .

If you want to upload this way you need to make time. Perhaps let your computer on and let it upload while you go eating or something. I think think there isn't a solution to fix this problem, it can't go faster...

BTW when transfering to you memory card it always goes faster becuase you can't upload a gig to your memory card only smaller then 8 mb. Smaller files go faster then larger onces

[<G>]

this has been asked a million times before. The drivers used with this were never meant for warezing stupid ps2 games. they were meant for homebrew purposes only. There are no 4 gig homebrew apps out there. your just going to have to live with this.

[niemand0815]

just to finish the math:
a 10mbit/s connection, being used at 5mbit/s (which is max for 10half-duplex) would be able to transfer 140Gbyte per hour without any overhead or disturbances.

(5mbit/s*8=40byte/s*60*60=144000Mbyte/h=140Gbyte/h)
this shows that compression or any other means of bandwith optimization is NOT the way to go...

the problem here seems to be either:
1) bad ip-stack implementation
2) slow cpu
3) slow internal i/o

the strange thing is:
sometimes i get transfer rates up to 2.5mbit/s, sometimes i rarely get 0.6 mbit/s.

i also noticed that hdldump 0.8.0 seems to be slightly faster(?!?) than 0.8.1 for me.

wasnt compression introduced with 0.8.1? if yes and if the slowness of 0.8.1 in comparison to 0.8.0 is not only with my ps2, then this is also indication cpu speed problems (as compressing also takes cpu power which should rather be used for transfer) or i/o (in this case propably memory-i/o?).


EDIT:
btw: is exec-ftp faster than hdl-dump?
the problem could also be the on-the-fly creation of the hdl-partitions. but on the other hand: extraction of iso from hd also is slow....

[AidenVenis]

just to finish the math:
a 10mbit/s connection, being used at 5mbit/s (which is max for 10half-duplex) would be able to transfer 140Gbyte per hour without any overhead or disturbances.

(5mbit/s*8=40byte/s*60*60=144000Mbyte/h=140Gbyte/h)
this shows that compression or any other means of bandwith optimization is NOT the way to go...

the problem here seems to be either:
1) bad ip-stack implementation
2) slow cpu
3) slow internal i/o

the strange thing is:
sometimes i get transfer rates up to 2.5mbit/s, sometimes i rarely get 0.6 mbit/s.

i also noticed that hdldump 0.8.0 seems to be slightly faster(?!?) than 0.8.1 for me.

wasnt compression introduced with 0.8.1? if yes and if the slowness of 0.8.1 in comparison to 0.8.0 is not only with my ps2, then this is also indication cpu speed problems (as compressing also takes cpu power which should rather be used for transfer) or i/o (in this case propably memory-i/o?).


EDIT:
btw: is exec-ftp faster than hdl-dump?
the problem could also be the on-the-fly creation of the hdl-partitions. but on the other hand: extraction of iso from hd also is slow....

Exec ftp is probarly faster becuase it uses the PS2 as an ftp server. HDL dump needs to decompress the .iso file and needs to make some more changes. Maybe if there is a program that can turn .iso files in ready-to-upload files you can put it on the hdd with exec-ftp and then it can be faster, I havn't tried yet...

A thing I got is that at the beginning of the upload on hdldump the speed is 2.5 mbbits/sec and after 30 sec or so it is 0.8 mbbits/sec. I don't really care for the speeds though, i'm not uploading games every day and I can wait an hour or more if that's what it takes to place the game right and it works good, I mean that is more important then the speed right?

[rob487]

Thanks for all the replies. The speed wouldn't bother me much, but the thing is I'm always transferring files back and forth. So it really eats away at my time. I'll just fork over the dough for an IDE to USB2 adapter so I don't have to tear my computer case apart all the time.

[dlanor]

just to finish the math:
a 10mbit/s connection, being used at 5mbit/s (which is max for 10half-duplex) would be able to transfer 140Gbyte per hour without any overhead or disturbances.

(5mbit/s*8=40byte/s*60*60=144000Mbyte/h=140Gbyte/h)

Your math is WAY off target...

You are multiplying the bit rate by 8 to get the byte rate, whereas you should DIVIDE by 8 instead. Thus your results are magnified by a factor of 64. The correct calculation is shown below:

(5 Mb/s)/8 = 0.625 MB/s = 2250 MB/h which is slightly less than 2.2 GB/h

Edit:
Another problem with your calculation is that it assumes a 10 Mbps interface, though the PS2 is supposed to have a 100 Mbps interface. However, the PS2 simply isn't capable of 'feeding' that interface at its max throughput rate.

Best regards: dlanor

[niemand0815]

you are right with the *8 :-)
sorry for that. hadnt time to check and just wrote somehow without thinking...

anyways, the ps2 may have 100mbit/s interface, but realistic transfer rates are, as you say, far below. my tests were done with 10HD and there was no change when using higher speeds.
Evenen changing from 10HD wired to 802.11b (which has about 2-3 mbit/s max(!! on optimum setup!) rate when only 2 stations are active) had almost no degradation on ftp and hdl-dump speeds.

the ps2 lan-interface is designed for dls-access mainly, so the ps2 itself realy doesnt need a faster interface.

it would though be interesting to see where this limitation comes from:
cpu? io? network card? network-asic (if an asic is used)?

personally, i rip the games using hdl and only use hdl-dump with games which dont work with hdl itself. much easier to do and i dont have to get my pc running and my wireless enabled ....

[dlanor]

the ps2 lan-interface is designed for dls-access mainly, so the ps2 itself realy doesnt need a faster interface.

it would though be interesting to see where this limitation comes from:
cpu? io? network card? network-asic (if an asic is used)?

Most likely the networking part of the adaptor is not directly responsible for it, though the interface between it and the PS2 motherboard may be. Both HDD and Ethernet should have separate DMA channels to the main memory, which I strongly doubt that they have. I suspect the IOP has to handle this by alternately transferring stuff for one or the other, making this kind of transfer very IOP-intensive.

Another very strong factor is that the IRX modules for networking and those for HDD access have never been optimized for cooperative use. Custom-made modules optimized that way would probably give much better transfer rates.

personally, i rip the games using hdl and only use hdl-dump with games which dont work with hdl itself. much easier to do and i dont have to get my pc running and my wireless enabled ....

Unfortunately I no longer have much choice, as my laser won't read DVD anymore. I must use a PC to read the DVD, and either send it to the PS2 over network, or install directly to PS2 HDD mounted in the PC.

I mount it in the PC only for bulk installations of 5 or more games, and use network for anything less.

Best regards: dlanor

[niemand0815]

i just wonder whether one could actually build a ide connector with integrated usb interface. this way you could have a usb cable coming out of your ps2 to connect the hd to the pc when the ps2 is turned off.
maybe you could even use the front usb of the ps2 to pass the usb signal to the outside of the ps2 without having a cable running out of the ps2 itself....

... but as i read this it would propably be better to use a custom pc case and just place the ps2 in it ... *G*