Allen S. Rout wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:05:44 -0400, Dan Stoner <[log in to unmask]> said:
>>> bytes long.
>>> So, how would you-all solve that one? I have this intuition that
>>> there's a simpler way I just can't find.
>> Some variation of the dd command?
> I suppose I could specify a one-byte block size, and my byte count.
> The thought of that made me grumpy, for no good reason I can recount.
> - Allen S. Rout
Going with larger block sizes using dd is always a good thing. Small
block sizes (1 byte == I/O Death) are murder on the I/O bus. I just did
a test with a single byte size versus a 1024-byte size, and the time
difference was 2:1 (32 sec versus 17 sec). I am sure that going to large
block sizes (4k perhaps?) would probably get this even faster.
[log in to unmask]