TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Underground Playground > TiVo Upgrade Center
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2013, 08:06 PM   #1
lillevig
Hot in West Texas
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Angelo, TX
Posts: 1,758
JMFS Speed

I recently had my first opportunity to use JMFS (on a 4-tuner, 500GB Premiere). Worked perfectly so a big thanks to comer. I used USB adapter cables insted of direct connecting to my MB so I expected it to be relatively slow and it finished 500GB in a bit less than 9 1/2 hours. I use Clonezilla to make a periodic clone of my PC hard drive (500GB) and it takes only about a third of that time. Granted, only one of the two drives is tethered via USB, but I wondered about the huge time difference. I also wondered what JMFS does differently than Clonezilla which uses dd as the underlying copy mechanism. I'm sure something is different otherwise folks would just use the dd on the MFS Tools disk to copy Premeire drives. I understand that JMFS would still be needed to do the Expand and Supersize but those are quick on their own. Will someone please help clear up my ignornace?
__________________
"I'm just one story in a two story town." Bon Jovi
lillevig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:20 PM   #2
vectorcatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 127
The biggest difference is the block size, if I remember correctly jmfs is doing everything in either 512byte or 4k chunks. That means the code reads it and the writes it for each chunk, so there is a ton of overhead. Most modern devices deal internally with much larger block sizes (bandwidth is king over latency here)

Actually if you run the dd part of jmfs manually though the terminal you can control the block size and speed things up significantly.

Typically the block size is small with something like dd if you have a bad drive and you want it to get as much data as possible so you read small chunks, so it won't fails large sections.
vectorcatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:54 PM   #3
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by vectorcatch View Post
The biggest difference is the block size, if I remember correctly jmfs is doing everything in either 512byte or 4k chunks. That means the code reads it and the writes it for each chunk, so there is a ton of overhead. Most modern devices deal internally with much larger block sizes (bandwidth is king over latency here)

Actually if you run the dd part of jmfs manually though the terminal you can control the block size and speed things up significantly.

Typically the block size is small with something like dd if you have a bad drive and you want it to get as much data as possible so you read small chunks, so it won't fails large sections.
Technically I think that's the

ddrescue

part of jmfs, and not the original

dd

although maybe he included both on the cd, the way MFS Live includes both

dd

and

dd_rescue

(which is not to be confused with

ddrescue

)
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:25 AM   #4
L David Matheny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by lillevig View Post
I recently had my first opportunity to use JMFS (on a 4-tuner, 500GB Premiere). Worked perfectly so a big thanks to comer. I used USB adapter cables insted of direct connecting to my MB so I expected it to be relatively slow and it finished 500GB in a bit less than 9 1/2 hours. I use Clonezilla to make a periodic clone of my PC hard drive (500GB) and it takes only about a third of that time. Granted, only one of the two drives is tethered via USB, but I wondered about the huge time difference. I also wondered what JMFS does differently than Clonezilla which uses dd as the underlying copy mechanism. I'm sure something is different otherwise folks would just use the dd on the MFS Tools disk to copy Premeire drives. I understand that JMFS would still be needed to do the Expand and Supersize but those are quick on their own. Will someone please help clear up my ignornace?
In this post from earlier this year I mentioned a discrepancy in run times between the ddrescue on the JMFS CD and the version on the Ubuntu Rescue Remix 12.04 CD. You may have encountered something similar. My drives were connected using SATA, however, one directly to the motherboard and one indirectly through an eSATA drive dock.
L David Matheny is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |