Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > > $ time sg_dd if=/dev/sg0 of=/dev/null bs=512 skip=0 count=200k
> > > real0m2.542s
> >
> > I always use "bs=1024k count=100". This eliminates more of the
> > system-call overhead (I hope...)
>
> Roger,
> That w
Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> > $ time sg_dd if=/dev/sg0 of=/dev/null bs=512 skip=0 count=200k
> > real0m2.542s
>
> I always use "bs=1024k count=100". This eliminates more of the
> system-call overhead (I hope...)
Roger,
That was sg_dd I was using (my own routine from sg_
Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> $ time sg_dd if=/dev/sg0 of=/dev/null bs=512 skip=0 count=200k
> real0m2.542s
I always use "bs=1024k count=100". This eliminates more of the
system-call overhead (I hope...)
Roger.
--
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-
MONZ wrote:
>
> Anyone got experiences with ?
> Docs tells about more uniform performance form outer to inner tracks
> compared to 10K disks, but then again a swap partition on outer tracks
> may perform better on 10K disks, since 15K disks are actually slower on
> outer tracks, according to doc'
MONZ wrote:
> Anyone got experiences with ?
> Docs tells about more uniform performance form outer to inner tracks
> compared to 10K disks, but then again a swap partition on outer tracks
> may perform better on 10K disks, since 15K disks are actually slower on
> outer tracks, according to doc's.
Anyone got experiences with ?
Docs tells about more uniform performance form outer to inner tracks
compared to 10K disks, but then again a swap partition on outer tracks
may perform better on 10K disks, since 15K disks are actually slower on
outer tracks, according to doc's.
Also, as I understand
6 matches
Mail list logo