From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wil Reichert Subject: Re: Disk I/O error while rebuilding an md raid-5 array Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:37:31 -0600 Message-ID: <7a329d911002082037y704ea1asa678270928b2253a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a329d911002082024j50fba7fcq717fe03d00209533@mail.gmail.com> <614f278c776be50b11520bfd3e2168ae@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <614f278c776be50b11520bfd3e2168ae@localhost> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Haigh Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Steven Haigh wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:24:09 -0600, Wil Reichert > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Dawning Sky >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Dawning Sky >>> wrote: >>>> It appears clonezilla is using dd and the speed is extremely >>>> slow (~5MB/sec) and it says it's gonna take 1 day to clone the 500= GB. >>> >>> BTW, is it normal for dd to be this slow, or is there something wro= ng >>> with my setup? =C2=A0These are quite modern drives and should be ab= le to >>> handle sequential transfer of 10's of MB/s. =C2=A0I have never used= dd >>> before so I don't have any experience. >> >> dd should be pretty close to the max possible throughput of yer driv= e. >> =C2=A0For example, I dd'd a 1T WD black not too long ago & it was ar= ound >> 120MB/s on the outside & 70MB/s in the middle. > > I think this depends more on the block size that is used. 1MB block s= izes > are much faster than 512 byte blocks... Good point, I was using bs=3D1M. Wil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html