On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Martin Hicks wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've run into a huge performance gap between running a g_mass_storage
> > > gadget with the backing file pointing to
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 12:56:37PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Martin Hicks wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've run into a huge performance gap between running a g_mass_storage
> > gadget with the backing file pointing to a raw partition (/dev/mmcblk1)
> > vs. creating a file on
Hi,
Martin Hicks writes:
> I've run into a huge performance gap between running a g_mass_storage
> gadget with the backing file pointing to a raw partition (/dev/mmcblk1)
> vs. creating a file on an ext4 filesystem and exporting that.
>
> With the partition I see write rates around 5MB/s, and wi
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Martin Hicks wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've run into a huge performance gap between running a g_mass_storage
> gadget with the backing file pointing to a raw partition (/dev/mmcblk1)
> vs. creating a file on an ext4 filesystem and exporting that.
>
> With the partition I see write
Hi,
I've run into a huge performance gap between running a g_mass_storage
gadget with the backing file pointing to a raw partition (/dev/mmcblk1)
vs. creating a file on an ext4 filesystem and exporting that.
With the partition I see write rates around 5MB/s, and with
/proc/sys/vm/block_dump
en
