On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:03 PM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:37 PM Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Current Linux copy tools have various problems compared to other > > > platforms - small I/O sizes (and not even configurable for most), > > > > Hmm, this comment puzzles me, since "cp" already uses s_blksize > > returned for the file as the IO size? Not sure if tar/rsync do > > the same, but if they don't already use s_blksize they should. I did some experiments changing the block size returned from 1K to 64K to 1MB and see no difference in the copy size used by cp (it was always 128K in all the cases when caching is disabled) -- Thanks, Steve
