On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:26:44AM +0100, Jamie Kitson wrote:
> Hi, I got your address after reading about your dd bs speed test. Me and a
> friend are having an argument, he recons that your test is tainted by your
> hardware... can you prove him wrong for me?
>
> Thanks, Jamie
Jamie, that test
Hi, I got your address after reading about your dd bs speed test. Me and a
friend are having an argument, he recons that your test is tainted by your
hardware... can you prove him wrong for me?
Thanks, Jamie
___
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
Dex, nice research ! (-:
A few comments: some details of what you found (and others commented
on) may depend on the intelligence built into the on-board disk controller
(re-mapping bad sectors, buffering I/O, ...)
- The default bs=512 matches a 'sector' (floppy disk, MBR) and also
should rema
Purpose:
I wanted to find out what effect changing the block size (bs=)
option of the dd command would have on partition copy speeds.
I also wanted to confirm that the default block size (if no bs
option was specified) was indeed 512 bytes as someone had said.
Procedure:
1.) I used dd to completel
