| 1 |
J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 04:21:45 AM Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I watched the dd process when I was erasing the old drive. I got about |
| 5 |
>> the same results. It started out a little over 200 and went as low as |
| 6 |
>> 170 or so close to the end. On average, about what hdparm shows. Close |
| 7 |
>> enough it seems. ;-) |
| 8 |
> Yep, but do the same after adding a filesystem to the mix? |
| 9 |
> Eg. mount it somewhere, then dd to a file on that drive. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> -- |
| 12 |
> Joost |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I've only ever use dd to blank a drive. I never used it to copy |
| 17 |
anything. While dd may be a bit faster in my use, having a file system |
| 18 |
is a more realistic use. I think a file system would slow things down a |
| 19 |
bit, maybe not much since file systems are pretty fast nowadays. Thing |
| 20 |
is, I'm fairly sure USB won't be as fast as a straight SATA connection. |
| 21 |
That is one reason I would rather use SATA connections instead. That |
| 22 |
was also the reason I posted that info. It shows that on my rig here, I |
| 23 |
can likely copy faster than USB with a SATA connection. The speed I |
| 24 |
posted is a good bit faster than what Helmut posted even tho his was a |
| 25 |
general amount. Unless Helmut has a older, slower machine then I |
| 26 |
wouldn't expect mine to be much if any faster than his. Basically, USB |
| 27 |
would be a bottleneck that I might can avoid and my mobo supports eSATA |
| 28 |
connections. . |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm not trying to benchmark, just give a general idea. What hdparm |
| 31 |
gives me is pretty close to what dd was giving and not to far off from |
| 32 |
what I get when doing a copy with cp or rsync. I been doing a good bit |
| 33 |
of copying here lately. I do have a drive that is the older SATA but |
| 34 |
most are the newer and faster SATA. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
Archives