However in the cases of USB hubs there are lots more reasons that can appear.
Say for instance I have USB2.0 (I actually do but anyway) but an extremely fast/powerful machine, I decide to hook up all my external hard drives (mechanical 7200rpm with huge capacities) via a single USB hub and take the machine with the setup more or less to a LAN party where people share/trade stuff.
~snip~
Forget overhead, there is a much more sinister issue with what you are describing. You still have prioritization, which means a mouse and keyboard would get priority, though for some reason some wireless mice can be disturbed by it, probably due to a lower priority, maybe the system thinks it's a network device. While I have experienced the wireless lag, I don't think I have ever experienced keyboard lag and I do use lots of hubs and USB (I have 6 hubs in the house and another on the way).
Regardless, there is another issue in regards to your scenario.
Most USB mice and keyboards are still USB 1.0 or 1.1, so, unless you have one of about 4 Usb 2.0 hubs made that had Multi-TT, all of your devices drop to USB 1.0 or 1.1 speeds. I believe only Belkin still makes a USB 2.0 Multi-TT hub (the 7 port F5U237) and they are among the more expensive 2.0 hubs made and not always easy to find. Worse, even if you find one, there is speculation that the newer versions have Multi-TT locked out, my guess is due to how much power and heat they use and generate, I added a heatsinks to one of mine after it got hot enough to discolor the plastic housing. Yes, it gets that hot. The newer one runs warm but not as warm, I suspect age may have played a part in the one getting hotter. It still functions great though.
This is the real reason I use an older 2.0 hub for my mouse and keyboard, and a second 3.0 for my flash drives and hard drive connections. I want as much speed as I can get.
Keeping in mind that most basic LAN connections are gigabit so topping out a gigabit LAN with a few external hard drives hooked up via one USB hub on USB2.0 base is unlikely. It is also somewhat understandably that because older USB implementations had overheads, so too would the CPU usage likely be spiked up as well for instance. This was also where I stated that if I were to run a powerful modern machine, besides a powerful modern machine is usually a pre-requisite for LAN parties as most people are usually gamers.
10/100 is still quite common I see it all the time, though you probably won't on a gaming machine, though gamers could flood a gigabit switch.
Conversely, on a machine like that, USB cpu overhead should be minimal at best (1-2% maybe) and much of that would be drive access anyhow. If not, you should be checking for driver updates. Also, if those transfers are using 20% or more of your resources, your gaming will suffer anyhow.
F.Y.I.
USB 2.0 tops out at half what Gigabit does, and gigabit runs at about 3/4 of what a conventional drive can handle.
Actual transfer speeds you might see on a good system are 40megs* on USB, 110 on Gigabit and 150 on a conventional Sata drive. I average 115 on my network (peaks of 125), but most systems I have tested tend to be hard pressed to even break 100meg at peak. USB 1, I don't remember the speeds, probably about 1-8megs, when I get knocked down to it, I find an alternate method to transfer the files, it's just too painful. *These are stated in megabyte, not megabit*
The case in itself maybe a little exaggerated but in theory this is also a possible scenario of where one may face issues with USB keyboards and/or mice. USB3.0 implementation have already addressed the issue in protocol overheads and have thus again raised the bar on the maximum theoretical throughput of the said technology which would most likely see this case rather moot.
I get conflicting reports about USB 3.0, about whether everything thing slows or not. One report says none do, meanwhile at least one manufacturer sells a USB 3.0 hub that specifically mentions that it has Multi-TT. I will have to do some experimentation and find out.
If USB is not multi-TT, then you will still have the same problems.
Having covered USB2.0 speed issues, USB as far as I know of even now can still suffer power issues. For instance, if I were to use a regular unpowered (or bus powered) seven ports USB hub and attach, say three or four 2.5" mechanical hard drives along with USB keyboard and/or USB mouse one is likely to see either the keyboard gets unpowered or the mouse and/or at least one of the 2.5" mechanical hard drives. Bus powered USB hubs can only go as far up as 0.5A according to wikipedia (5A when charging but I guess charging alone only).
~snip~
You should never use a bus powered hub and connect ANY drive to it for power. Bus powered hubs are designed for low power devices only. Some laptop drives alone can use .9amps which didn't allow them to even run off an older USB 1.1 port even when directly connected to the mainboard.
USB is “smart” and remember the prioritization...
A few issues with your statement from the start though.
Based on USB specs, a 7 port hub technically should have a 7 amp power supply, however, it doesn't. Most are 2 amp or so, but even those should handle a couple laptop drives and a mouse and keyboard, the latter of which use very little. Why? Because anyone connecting more than 4 drives to be powered from a hub deserve what they get. Even if it works, the speeds would be atrocious, even if you had full USB speeds. Peak USB divided 4 ways, for large data transfer, no thank you.
Anyhow, in the event of an over current, the hub and OS will/should only shutdown the item with the highest draw that puts it over the top. Not everything, and certainly not the mouse or keyboard.
The same case would never happen if the keyboard and/or mouse is PS/2 powered as again the only main peripherals on the PC that uses such port are keyboards and mice alone. So the issue is nullified as it is irrelevant.
I have had devices that used ps2 power to run them, including a webcam, and tv card.
Again a bit of exaggeration being put forth into play but it maybe a possible scenario. One could probably also extrapolate such scenarios by having USB hubs for instance daisy chained.
I am not trying to grill you here over it neither am I here to proclaim PS/2's superiority for all scenarios. However PS/2 still has it's place apart from lacking ports and/or using old legacy keyboards in my humble opinion.
PS2 is a shell of it's old self.
Some chipsets no longer carry a ps2 system, so you get a daughter chip to run it. They have also removed most of the power it used to get. I know Intel at least considered doing this 5 years ago. IF this is the case, most peoples arguments for PS2 truly goes right out the window. I can't confirm it, but I've heard that ICH9 dropped native PS2 support, that was the plan from Intel at one time. If they didn't, it wouldn't surprise me if they did by ICH10.
Anyhow, I stand by what I said.
Yes, there are occasions, but they are few and far between.
Definitely having computer(s) in basement and running cables to where your other peripherals are has its benefits without a doubt. I guess one of the potential downsides is that if in the future you want to upgrade the machines for instance that would require travelling into the basement.
I rarely upgrade my systems anymore, we passed the point where it's necessary or beneficial to upgrade every few months.
Besides, there is very little room to upgraded anything that will benefit me. All my systems down there are drool worthy.