[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #17193] performance of `dd' w.r.t. different block sizes

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: [bug #17193] performance of `dd' w.r.t. different block sizes
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:44:02 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv: Gecko/20060608 Ubuntu/dapper-security Firefox/


                 Summary: performance of `dd' w.r.t. different block sizes
                 Project: The GNU Hurd
            Submitted by: tschwinge
            Submitted on: Monday 07/24/06 at 16:44
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Reproducibility: None
              Size (loc): None
         Planned Release: None
                  Effort: 0.00



20:03 <antrik> with "dd if=/dev/hd0s6 of=/dev/hd0s8 bs=512" I get the same 20
kbyte/s as with cat
20:03 <antrik> but with bs=1k, I already get 75 k...
20:03 <antrik> 130 with 2k
20:04 <antrik> 230 with 4k
20:04 <antrik> and so on
20:04 <ness> Does copying the files stress ipc (I'd guess)?
20:05 <ness> Because overhead is smaller for larger payload sizes...
20:08 <antrik> well, with larger block sizes, the disk seeks considerably
less; looks like each single copied block is written immediately...
20:09 <antrik> that doesn't explain the unexpected jump between 512 byte and
1024 byte block size, though
20:10 <antrik> maybe with 1024 it is fast enought so the disk access is
optimized a bit at least, or something
20:11 <antrik> or it's some sheduling issue
20:27 <antrik> also, with sizes <512 there is no further slowdown
20:27 <antrik> (well, except when going <16...)
23:21 <antrik> interesting... if I give a larger blocksize to dd, the
relative CPU consumption rises compared to that one of pflocal...
23:21 <antrik> and the CPU consumption of /dev/zero drops nearly to 0


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]