Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:22:01 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        doc@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 247136] Handbook, section 2.3.1.1: dd(1) command uses "bs=1M" (slow), should be "bs=4k" (/much/ faster)
Message-ID:  <bug-247136-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D247136

            Bug ID: 247136
           Summary: Handbook, section 2.3.1.1: dd(1) command uses "bs=3D1M"
                    (slow), should be "bs=3D4k" (/much/ faster)
           Product: Documentation
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Many People
          Priority: ---
         Component: Documentation
          Assignee: doc@FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: t.eichstaedt@gmx.net

Dear documenters,

1. unless there's any technical reason to use a blocksize of 1M, this shoul=
d be
changed.  Unfortunately I do not have the insight to judge that, so please
check w/ s/o who knows more about this.  All images I wrote w/ "bs=3D1k" so=
 far
worked, so I'd assume that either all those images were integer multiples of
1M, or there's no technical reason to pad the end w/ zeroes to the next 1M
boundary.

Rationale:
(AFAIK) The native blocksize of USB media is 4k.  Writing an image w/ the
native blocksize is about 7 times faster (at least on USB 2).

2. I'd like to suggest to add "status=3Dprogress" to the dd(1) arguments, b=
ecause
this command can take a few minutes (on USB 1/2) and it's much nicer to have
some reply about what's going on.  Somehow like this: "older versions of dd=
(1)
do not support 'status=3Dprogress'.  If it fails, simply use the command w/=
o it."

I just stumbled over this when I was preparing the media for an installatio=
n,
and instead of just doing what I used to do ("dd bs=3D1k conv=3Dsync"), I c=
hecked
the handbook to see if s/th changed.  Nothing changed, but using "bs=3D1M" =
was
significantly slower than "bs=3D1k".  So I thought: both is wrong, should b=
e 4k!=20
And yes - using "bs=3D4k" is in fact much faster.

The same bad example occurs in the man page of dd(1) (last example)

With kind regards, Torsten

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-247136-9>