On 08/20/2011 12:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/19/2011 4:38 PM, Dion Kant wrote:
>
>> I now think I understand the "strange" behaviour for block sizes not an
>> integral multiple of 4096 bytes. (Of course you guys already knew the
>> answer but just didn
On 08/14/2011 02:30 PM, Dion Kant wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 01:23 PM, Dion Kant wrote:
>> Forget
>> about the previous results, they will be wrong because of libgcc stream
>> buffering and I did not check how these buffers are actually written to
>> kernel space.
> libg
On 08/14/2011 01:23 PM, Dion Kant wrote:
> Forget
> about the previous results, they will be wrong because of libgcc stream
> buffering and I did not check how these buffers are actually written to
> kernel space.
libgcc uses writev to write out an array of buffers to kernel space
Use
On 08/14/2011 09:14 AM, Dion Kant wrote:
> The good and problematic block sizes do not really coincide with the
> ones I observe with dd, but the odd behaviour is there.
When testing on Linux kernel 2.6.37.6-0.5-xen, I found that a sync()
call did not give any guarantee that the buffe
On 08/13/2011 03:55 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> My explanation to you wasn't fully correct. I confused specifying no
> block size with specifying an insanely large block size. The other post
> I was referring to dealt with people using a 1GB (or larger) block size
> because it made the math easier
On 08/09/2011 07:13 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 9:12 AM, Dion Kant wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your remarks. The disk info is given below. Writing to the
>> disk is oke when mounted, so I think it is not a hardware/alignment
>> issue. However your remarks ma
On 08/09/2011 06:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 11:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 2:00 PM, Dion Kant wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2011 03:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2011 1:25 AM, Dion Kant wrote:
>>>>> Dear list,
>>&
On 08/08/2011 03:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 1:25 AM, Dion Kant wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> When writing to a logical volume (/dev/sys/test) directly through the
>> device, I obtain a slow performance:
>>
>> root@dom0-2:/dev/mapper# dd of=
, 122 MB/s
Does anyone know what is going on?
The configuration is as follows:
Debian 6.0.2
Kernel 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64
Tests are on a partition on one physical disk
Best regards,
Dion Kant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
9 matches
Mail list logo