Running 4 in RAID stripping. Thought they would be faster than they are.
934905
My performance score in W7 is a 6.5. Thought it would be faster. I do see a performance gain when using the pc but not mind boggling. They are quite and smooth. Used to take 1/2 hour to install W7, with these drives it took 15 minutes so a definite gain there.
42493
These things are slow!
a CHEAPER 32gb usb drive performs 3x the speed for me compared to crap lexar usb drives

recommend to avoid the lexar brand from now on. disappointed.
289506
working fine just not as fast as i was hoping
109511
Wasn't noticeably faster than my 1300~mhz ram, even in benching.

Did the job just fine though, but it turned out my old ram wasn't the problem, so I returned it since I didn't need it.
3222892
It's loud and it's slow. I picked a pair up on sale to replace a couple of Seagate BarraCuda XT ST32000641AS that I was using for a local RAID solution. I'll probably go back to the Seagates and just use the Toshiba drives for media storage and backups.

The price pushed me over the edge but I don't know that I'd recommend these particular drives.
1887243
After seeing such good ratings for this drive, I ordered 2 at home and 5 at work. The 5 at work arrived quickly a few days ago, so I gave them a try. I was thoroughly disappointed. It's even slower than some of my USB 2.0 drives! My personal order arrived today, I will return them without opening (since both orders were placed on the same day, I don't expect any difference).

The first thing I tried was copying a file into the drive. Not really a large file, only 161 MB (it's the iTunes installer for Windows). I did this at home on my Surface Pro 4. The result:
Silicon Power 8GB J50 (this drive): 25 seconds (average of 5 runs across 4 different drives; max 34s, min 11s)
Brand "K" USB 2.0 8GB: 22 seconds (only 1 run)
Brand "S" USB 3.0 16GB: 7 seconds (average of 2 runs)
Brand "T" USB 3.0 16GB: 3 seconds (average of 2 runs)

You see it's worse than a USB 2.0 drive. But that's not my main use case. At work, I mainly want these for flashing and booting live Linux. So I tried that as well. I used LiLi USB Creator to flash Linux Mint with 3 GB of persistence space. I did this at home on my Surface Pro 4.
Silicon Power 8GB J50 (this drive): 20 minutes
Brand "K" USB 2.0 8GB: I didn't keep the exact time, but longer than 20 minutes
Brands "S" and brand "T" USB 3.0 16GB: both under 8 minutes

After flashing, it's time to boot the live Linux. I did this at work, booting up an HP EliteBook Core i5 laptop.
Silicon Power 8GB J50 (this drive): 5 minutes
Brand "K" and brand unknown USB 2.0 8GB: 2 minutes
Brands "S" and brand "T" USB 3.0 16GB: less than 1 minute

Again, thoroughly disappointed. It's not just a bad unit because I have 5 drives from my order, all bad.
2697802
I've taken to using these over the 3.5" disks lately because I can fit so many in a regular 4U rackmount chassis. I'm sure they're not as fast as their 3.5" 7200RPM cousins with lots of cache, but most people buying these will be tying a bunch together anyway. More spindles beats spindle speed every time.

Can't say much for durability given how short I've had them so far, but I spent extra getting the reds hoping they'd be the most reliable
2552582
The DataTraveler 410 is supposed to be a major step forward in USB flash drive speeds, exceeding 20MB/s write speed.  If that is true, and I'll give Kingston the benefit of the doubt, then they have taken one major step backwards in quality control and I got a lemon.  This flash drive is the slowest I've owned in years.  I love Kingston, I exclusively use Kingston RAM and I own multiple Kingston flash drives.  The fastest of those drives is my DataTraveler HyperX which writes at a steady 18MB/s and reads at 30MB/s.  When I opened up the DataTraveler 410 the first thing I did was test it by transferring large video files and I was aghast when I saw the write speed max out at 8MB/s.  That is not a typo, it maxed out at eight megabytes per second.  I tried formatting with FAT32 and NTFS, with various allocation sizes, and nothing speeded it up.  I also tried multiple computers, enabling write caching, and a host of other solutions (including using TeraCopy instead of the default Windows file copier) to no avail.  In every test I did the HyperX maintained 18MB/s and the 410 got 8MB/s.  I'm hoping I simply got a fluke and that their new flagship USB flashdrive isn't a major flop.  I will be returning this drive for a replacement soon, one which I hope performs up to Kingston's usual standards.
3005349
Purchased this product thinking it would work as advertised (400MB per second).  Unfortunately real-world performance was NOWHERE near the operating speeds promised.  (Maybe I got a bad-batch or counterfeit product--but it didn't work on my USB 3.0 system.)  The drive was going to operate as a backup for an operating system.  Oddly, when attempted to place the files it took 12+ hrs. (I did it overnight so I thought to myself, well maybe the install was slow--but the followup performance will still work--wrong!

Using a different USB 2.0 drive this same procedure took only 10-15 min. I've moved these files to another drive--so it's not the method of moving files--its definitely the drive that has problems.  Since files I was installing were only about 4.5 GB large and it took 12 hours to install them-- the average write speed was something like 92Kb per second instead of 400Mb per second.  HUGE difference.

I returned the drive--but before I did I had to reformat.  It took 3 hours. to reformat per pass.  Maybe others will have better performance-- sadly I did not. :(
861582
I tried this cable with a Samsung EVO 850 240GB drive which I already had tested in a $16.99 Inatek UASB USB 3.0 enclosure (purchased on Amazon).

This UBS 3.1 cable is slower.  If you look at the attached photos, the first is the drive with this cable and the 2nd is the exact same drive in the cheap USB 3.0 enclosure.  Same computer. This is running the CrystalMark DiskMark 64S benchmarking tool, which is designed to effectively test SSDs.

Disappointing performance.  On the plus side, it's certainly simpler to install (the Inatek requires 6 SMALL screws, which is kinda bonkers).
An SSD has no real need of the enclosure.  So this seems like it would be a better solution.  But not if speed matters.
The benchmark is automatically run 5x and I ran the whole thing twice because I expected this cable to be faster.
3318962
Belive it or not ! I confirmed this with customer Service. If you choose to install only 3 Drives in Raid 5 configuration and later you buy 4 th drive, you can not add it without reformating the 4 drives and losing all your data.  Nice NAS , good price, but slow velocity transfer speeds and dificult to expand ( all drives must have the same capacity ). Think twice before you buy this.

Update:

The system fan is not working. I had to atach an external fan. Avoid this NAS  !!
3945789
I am using 4 of these in a RAID10, and while they may not be the quickest drives around. For the money, it's hard to beat, especially if you plan on building a RAID.

Cost to horsepower: Go with the $300 7200K RPM Raptor? or 3 $85 WD Greeens in a RAID5? I'm willing to bet the RAID5 wins.
3301622
I Bought this because I was searching for a fast Device, that is not Bus Powered, has Raid0/1 Options and I can ad my own drives.
I need this in two ways: 1 as Raid0 with 2x1TB SSD Samsung EVO, and one time as Raid1 also with 2x1TB EVO.
More then pleased I am with the results.
This thing is faster then a Lacie Rugged (Real time Measurements, not company speeds).
It is faster in any configuration when compared with the Lacie conected to the USB3 Port, in Raid0 even more then double.
It is faster in Raid0 even when the Lacie is connected via Thunderbolt.
Here the results:
read/write more then 410MB/s in Raid0 (Always) //// always around 250MB/s in Raid1
I also tried a software Raid... there it always is at about 250MB/s
I think it has a SATA2/300MB/s controller... so more then this per single disk will not be possible.
The limit of not doubling the speed to 500MB/s is because of the USB3 controller... but it is still the fastest I met so far.
It also offers up to 2x3TB space. So putting in 2x2TB WD 2.5" drives would give you 4TB as Raid0 and about 160MB/s Read/Write speed.
Definitely a recommendation from my side!
2781412
I chose to buy these hard disk drives because of the lack of storage space on my SSD (500GB); so I wanted to create a RAID 5 array in my desktop for speed and redundancy. I chose these drives in specific because they are very inexpensive, i'm assuming they are cheap because they have a SATA 2 interface and a rather small cache buffer, but in my case, I figured any HDD could never saturate the bandwidth of a SATA 3 port (6Gb/s), so SATA 2 is fine for my needs, and the low cache buffer was fixed because I have a second 120GB SSD (other than my OS drive) that is partitioned to have a 16GB cache buffer for the HDD. In conclusion, I bought 3 of these hard drives and am using them in RAID 5, and I am very happy with them so far; I would recommend these to anyone looking to buy some, and I plan on buying more in the future, assuming the price stays the same.

In case anyone was wondering, I am very inclined in the IT field, if anyone has a question about my RAID arrays, my personal desktop, or any other computer related topics, feel free to Email me at chris11d7@gmail.com
1990376
As others have reported, it's a great price (or was at the time of purchase) for 4TB RAID.  The problem is that getting your files off is painfully slow.  What's the point of putting a gigabit card in the device if you are never going to get data off of it faster than at 10-15mbps?

Boo to Western Digital on this one!
3895043
It is slow in retrieving files. The backup failed repeatedly. The software in configuring it does not work well. Comparing to Segate Central I bought last year, WD's performance is worse. It is NAS but I doubt that it is worth the money. I think that I am better off to buy two 4TB hard disks and do the cross backup myself. Not only it will be cheaper but it is also faster.
1979569
I'm convinced this is the future so why are they still installing those other hard drives in new computers?  I ran the mem check also on my MBP late 2011 and everything checked out.  Every application I'm running, including VMWARE with WIN7, is runnning faster then I thought possible.  No more waiting for anything, multiprocessing here we come!