Just curious but is sdd any quicker than dd?
Moss
$ pkg_info sdd
Information for inst:sdd-1.52p0
Comment:
faster and improved version of dd
Description:
sdd is a replacement for dd(1).
- Much faster than dd in cases where input block size (ibs) is not equal
to the output block size (obs).
-
On 06/11/14 21:26, Nick Holland wrote:
On 06/11/14 15:55, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2014-06-11, Peter Fraser p...@thinkage.ca wrote:
...
Also for dd the block size has always been a puzzle.
For accessing a raw device you want it to be a multiple of the
sector size of the device (512
Timing on a 4.9 gig partition
# time dd if=/dev/rwd0d of=/dev/rwd1d bs=64k conv=noerror
time dd if=/dev/rwd0d of=/dev/rwd1d bs=64k conv=noerror
81956+1 records in
81956+1 records out
5371101184 bytes transferred in 90.720 secs (59204871 bytes/sec)
1m30.75s real 0m0.07s user 0m6.12s
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:45:30PM +, Peter Fraser wrote:
To duplicate a disk I used the following:
dd if=/dev/rsd2c of=/dev/rsd3c bs=32M seek=1 skip=1 conv=noerror
the bs=32M was picked because it was a large size, and the machine has lots of
free memory.
Watching the machine I
To duplicate a disk I used the following:
dd if=/dev/rsd2c of=/dev/rsd3c bs=32M seek=1 skip=1 conv=noerror
the bs=32M was picked because it was a large size, and the machine has lots
of
free memory.
Watching the machine I could see the disk activity lights blinking
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 17:45, Peter Fraser wrote:
To duplicate a disk I used the following:
dd if=/dev/rsd2c of=/dev/rsd3c bs=32M seek=1 skip=1 conv=noerror
the bs=32M was picked because it was a large size, and the machine has
lots of
free memory.
Watching the machine I could see the
can take place.
All it would do is complicate the program flow.
-Original Message-
From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Ted
Unangst
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:11 PM
To: Peter Fraser
Cc: 'misc@openbsd.org'
Subject: Re: Duplicating a disk
On Wed
On 2014-06-11, Peter Fraser p...@thinkage.ca wrote:
To duplicate a disk I used the following:
dd if=/dev/rsd2c of=/dev/rsd3c bs=32M seek=1 skip=1 conv=noerror
Why are you skipping the first 32M?
Is there any method of coping a disk or partition, or even a file that uses
non-blocking I/O?
On 06/11/14 15:55, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2014-06-11, Peter Fraser p...@thinkage.ca wrote:
...
Also for dd the block size has always been a puzzle.
For accessing a raw device you want it to be a multiple of the
sector size of the device (512 bytes for most disks) and there is
9 matches
Mail list logo
