From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 28 06:10:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F5B16A41F for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:10:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd2mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E7B43D48 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:10:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd4mr8so.prod.shaw.ca (pd4mr8so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.101]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IWT006A8QHVMX10@l-daemon> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:10:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml4so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.148]) by pd4mr8so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IWT003CPQHV9510@pd4mr8so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:10:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from soralx.cydem.org ([24.87.27.3]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IWT00MTPQHVO660@l-daemon> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:10:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:10:42 -0800 From: soralx@cydem.org In-reply-to: <200603281139.29588.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <200603272210.43032.soralx@cydem.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <17444.13967.998120.314837@bhuda.mired.org> <200603281139.29588.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Subject: Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:10:45 -0000 > On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote: > > One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern > > systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the > > memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process to be. 128m or > > more is perfectly reasonable. > > It won't go any faster.. > > In a modern system the CPU is so much faster than the disk than anything above > about 16k would be enough. I found 64k to be optimal (e.g, max performance) on most machines Timestamp: 0x4428D30F [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/ ridin' VN1500-B2