| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:11:27 +0000, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Incidentally, if you want to use dd, adding bs=4096 speeds it up quite |
| 4 |
> > significantly. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Thank you. I have always wondered what the optimal bs might be. |
| 7 |
> And why - could you possibly explain that, please? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Is bs=4096 best for all disk-based operations? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Many filesystems are set up with 4K blocks, so matching this with dd is |
| 12 |
more efficient. The default is 512 byte blocks and anything larger |
| 13 |
than this is good, I sometimes use 40960 but that isn't significantly |
| 14 |
faster. I prefer to avoid using dd on hard disks altogether, it's just |
| 15 |
so damn slow for large amounts of data. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You can't teach a new mouse old clicks. |
Archives