J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 04:21:45 AM Dale wrote: >> >> I watched the dd process when I was erasing the old drive. I got about >> the same results. It started out a little over 200 and went as low as >> 170 or so close to the end. On average, about what hdparm shows. Close >> enough it seems. ;-) > Yep, but do the same after adding a filesystem to the mix? > Eg. mount it somewhere, then dd to a file on that drive. > > -- > Joost > >
I've only ever use dd to blank a drive. I never used it to copy anything. While dd may be a bit faster in my use, having a file system is a more realistic use. I think a file system would slow things down a bit, maybe not much since file systems are pretty fast nowadays. Thing is, I'm fairly sure USB won't be as fast as a straight SATA connection. That is one reason I would rather use SATA connections instead. That was also the reason I posted that info. It shows that on my rig here, I can likely copy faster than USB with a SATA connection. The speed I posted is a good bit faster than what Helmut posted even tho his was a general amount. Unless Helmut has a older, slower machine then I wouldn't expect mine to be much if any faster than his. Basically, USB would be a bottleneck that I might can avoid and my mobo supports eSATA connections. . I'm not trying to benchmark, just give a general idea. What hdparm gives me is pretty close to what dd was giving and not to far off from what I get when doing a copy with cp or rsync. I been doing a good bit of copying here lately. I do have a drive that is the older SATA but most are the newer and faster SATA. Dale :-) :-)
