Why can't I plug a device into 2 USB ports instead of 1

>>55863268
because what you're plugging in wouldn't be a USB device

>>55863268
Technically could if the device had two USB ports on it or one non-standard port that combined the two.

>>55863314
What if it's a USB 3 device, capable of the higher speed through its one port but bottlenecked by usb 2 on an older pc?

>>55863268

Why can't you plug a single hose into two spigots for higher flow rate?

>>55863350
What if you connect it to 2 taps with a splitter?

>>55863370

Nothing happens.
Because you're limited by the total water pressure available to your house.

Much the same way you're limited by the total bandwidth of your/your device's USB bus.

Theoretically, any USB device should be able to max out the USB Bus if it's the only thing using it. In practice, well, shoddy quality, bad device-side busses, read/write bandwidth, and much more limits it. An external HDD can only really read/write as fast as the drive can, even if the bus supports a MUCH higher rate. A flash drive is still ultimately limited by the speed of the flash controller writing to the chip(s).

It's the same way you could run a 10-gigabit fiber connection all over your house, but if your DSL tops out at 18 megabits per second, that's the fastest download rate you're getting.

>>55863335
Perhaps, with a custom driver.

>>55863427
Yeah but you can plug it into the neighbors tap

>>55863615
but you still have the same hose, yeah...

File: 1469964982731.jpg (90KB, 455x536px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 455x536px

Give me the gold.
I want the gold .
I just came here to help .
Magic flute.
Handed down .
Who else seen the leppy.
Say yeah .
Yeah .

>>55863615

To be fair, the analogy breaks down here.

Technically, you'd only get whatever the max pressure is from either system. It's not an additive system.

But if you had a device with two USB buses, and two hosts with separate USB buses, you'd get a faster "total" speed between the two connections, but I'm utterly unaware of how this theoretical setup would work to combine the data streams into just 1 flat file on 1 host, from the 1 flat file of the device. Ultimately, the easier solution would just be to use a different connection method such as Thunderbolt 3, PCI-E, or USB 3.0

>>55863684
Well I've got 2 USB 3 controllers in my pc, you think I can setup some kind of external SSD that won't be bottlenecked?

>>55863725
No,

>>55863743
Oh

>>55863725

Incredibly unlikely. Unless you become a firmware genius overnight and manage to find a way to write something on the hardware level that would allow the USB controllers to work together in some manner that nobody else on earth has conceived of yet.

Additionally, why on earth would you need to write to an external drive that fast?
And even the fastest PCI-E SSD Drives only hit 3,200 MB/s read, while Thunderbolt 3.0 can hit 5,000 MB/s transfer speeds.

>>55863874
Was just asking out of curiosity, I rarely even fill my 32GB kingston usb. I have no need for that kind of storage

Why do people make up complicated analogies when we already have a word that perfectly compasses what the problem with OP's question is?
It's called bottleneck, people.

>>55863268
>why are serial interfaces faster than parallel

>>55864237
They aren't..

>>55864352
Rookie mistake.

>>55864352
>sata isn't faster than pata

>>55863874
get your units right, retard

>>55864825

what?
Both measurements are in Megabytes per second. The 5,000 MB/s comes from the theoretical maximum of 40 gigabits per second of Thunderbolt 3.0, which is 5 gigabytes per second, which is 5,000 megabytes per second.
I don't see what the problem is?