LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L Archives

LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L  2007

LINUX-L 2007

Subject:

Re: Better way to do it:

From:

Jon Akers <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Platform Independent Linux List! <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:17:59 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (29 lines)

Allen S. Rout wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:05:44 -0400, Dan Stoner <[log in to unmask]> said:
>
>
>>> 1042808832
>>>
>>> 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.

--
Jon Akers
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager