Moving this to m...@... Would part of this discussion usefully related to such issues like using 'dd' for diskwipes/copies/reformatting and slow data movement speeds?
There are times when I am wiping (for reuse) hard disks using 'dd' and I set the BlockSize to > 512 (like 1M or so sometimes) and the transfer speeds are quite a lot slower than for using 'dd' on some other Operating systems. (Linux or Windows) Mind you, for a lot of this, I am using oBSD RamDISK, so I am not anticipating a full-fledged OS support for the ATA or SCSI or USB2 platforms. But for those systems where I am using -stable or -current, the speeds are still comparably slow. I concur with Theo's point on portability and making a sysctl for kernel is hazardous, but what am I seeing in the above for 'dd' that would be causing the poor performance? (* BTW, I am using if=/dev/zero for the baseline, other if=/...'es may have lower performance as an input for compare*) Just my 2 cents. -sean > Subject: Re: little cp diff > 2010/2/8 Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org>: > > For those of you who asked why cp needs to be portable, come on. > > You've got it all wrong. If cp isn't written in a portable fashion, > > then what is the point of doing anything else in a portable fashion. > This is good and reasonable answer. So I think we should stop discussion. > antonvm _________________________________________________________________
