I created an image file using dd on my disk /dev/sda which fdisk says it is 500107862016 bytes in size. The resulting image file is 500108886016 bytes which is exactly 1024000 bytes larger.
Why is the image file 1MB larger than my source disk? Is there something related to the fact that I specified bs=1M in my dd command?
When I restore the image file onto another identical disk, I get "dd: error writing ‘/dev/sda’: No space left on device" error. Is this a problem? Will my new disk be corrupted?
conv=noerror makes dd(1) continue after a reading error, and this is not what you want. Also conv=sync fills incomplete blocks (mainly last block) with zeros up to fill a complete block, so probably this appending zeros to your last block is what is making your file greater than the actual disk size.
You don't need to use any of the conv options you used. No conversion is going to be made, and dd(1) will write the incomplete last block in case of the image doesn't have a full block size (which is the case)
Just retry your command with:
dd if=/dev/sda of=yourfile.img
and then
dd if=yourfile.img of=/dev/sdb
If you plan to use some greater buffer size (not needed, as you are using a block device and the kernel doesn't impose a blocksize for reading block devices) just use a multiple of the sector size that is a divisor of the whole disk size (something like one full track ---absurd, as today's disks' tracks are completely logical and don't have any relationship with actual disk geometry)
Related
is there any way to check the final size of a specific file after compression in a squashfs filesystem?
I'm looking through mksquashfs/unsquashfs command line options but I can't find anything.
Using the -info option in mksquashfs only prints the size before the compression.
Thanks
This isn't feasible to do with much granularity, because compression is done at block level, not file level.
A file may be marked at starting 50kb into the size of the buffer created by decompressing block 50, and continuing to end 50 bytes into the decompressed block 52 (ignoring fragments here, which are a separate concern) -- but that doesn't let you map back to the position inside the compressed copy of block-50 where that file starts. (You can easily determine the compression ratio for block 51, but you can't easily figure out the ratios for the parts of the file contained in 50 and 52 in our example, because they're shared with other contents).
So the information isn't exposed because it isn't easily available. This actually makes storage of numerous (similar) small files significantly more efficient, because a single compression context is used for all of them (and decompressing a block to retrieve one file may mean that you've got files next to it already decompressed in memory)... but without potentially-unfounded assumptions (such as assuming that all contents within a block share that block's average ratio) it doesn't help with trying to backtrace how well each individual item compressed, because the items aren't compressed individually in the first place.
I'm zeroing a new hard disk like so:
pv /dev/zero | tee /dev/sdb | sha1sum -
The idea is that I will zero the disk and simultaneously compute a checksum of however many zeros got written. Then I'll sha1sum the block device and see if it matches the data that I originally wrote to it.
The question is, what happens when "tee" runs out of space on the device and terminates? Say the block device is exactly 1 million bytes; tee will obviously fill it with 1 million zero bytes, but will it forward exactly 1 million zero bytes to sha1sum?
Answer to the original question:
No, tee will not stop writing to stdout at precisely the point at which a write to a file specified in an argument fails.
But I don't see that it matters much. It appears that your goal is to ensure that the entire disk has been overwritten with zeros, without worrying about how big the disk is. So reading the disk and comparing every block read to a block of zeros should suffice. You can do that with cmp /dev/sdb /dev/zero. If it says "EOF on /dev/sdb", then all the bytes were 0.
For what it's worth, I thought of another way to do the same thing, albeit a little indirectly:
pv /dev/zero | dd bs=100M of=/dev/sdb 2> log
dd's report (captured in "log") should contain a precise count of bytes written, and you can use that to compute the sha1sum (or, alternatively, diff the block device against a generated stream of exactly that many zeros).
(bs=100M is because dd's default block size is 512 bytes, which turns out not to be performant in my use case)
I've been wandering about the size of bss, data or text that I have. So I typed size command.
The result is
text data bss dec hex filename
5461 580 24 ....
What does the number mean? Is the unit bits, Bytes, Kilobytes or Megabytes?
In addition, how to reduce the size of bss, data, text of the file? (Not using strip command.)
That command shows a list of the sections and their sizes in bytes found in an object file. The unit is decimal bytes, unless display of a different format was specified. And there most likely exists a man page for the size command too.
"reduce the size" - modify source code. Take things out.
As for the part about reducing segment size, you have some leeway in moving parts from data to bss by not initializing them. This is only an option if the program initializes the data in another way.
You can reduce data or bss by replacing arrays with dynamically allocated memory, using malloc and friends.
Note that the bss takes no space in the executable and reducing it just for the sake of having smaller numbers reported by size is probably not a good idea.
I'm trying to create a large empty file on a VFAT partition by using the `dd' command in an embedded linux box:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/flash/file bs=1M count=1 seek=1023
The intention was to skip the first 1023 blocks and write only 1 block at the end of the file, which should be very quick on a native EXT3 partition, and it indeed is. However, this operation turned out to be quite slow on a VFAT partition, along with the following message:
lowmem_shrink:: nr_to_scan=128, gfp_mask=d0, other_free=6971, min_adj=16
// ... more `lowmem_shrink' messages
Another attempt was to fopen() a file on the VFAT partition and then fseek() to the end to write the data, which has also proved slow, along with the same messages from the kernel.
So basically, is there a quick way to create the file on the VFAT partition (without traversing the first 1023 blocks)?
Thanks.
Why are VFAT "skipping" writes so slow ?
Unless the VFAT filesystem driver were made to "cheat" in this respect, creating large files on FAT-type filesystems will always take a long time. The driver, to comply with FAT specification, will have to allocate all data blocks and zero-initialize them, even if you "skip" the writes. That's because of the "cluster chaining" FAT does.
The reason for that behaviour is FAT's inability to support either:
UN*X-style "holes" in files (aka "sparse files")
that's what you're creating on ext3 with your testcase - a file with no data blocks allocated to the first 1GB-1MB of it, and a single 1MB chunk of actually committed, zero-initialized blocks) at the end.
NTFS-style "valid data length" information.
On NTFS, a file can have uninitialized blocks allocated to it, but the file's metadata will keep two size fields - one for the total size of the file, another for the number of bytes actually written to it (from the beginning of the file).
Without a specification supporting either technique, the filesystem would always have to allocate and zerofill all "intermediate" data blocks if you skip a range.
Also remember that on ext3, the technique you used does not actually allocate blocks to the file (apart from the last 1MB). If you require the blocks preallocated (not just the size of the file set large), you'll have to perform a full write there as well.
How could the VFAT driver be modified to deal with this ?
At the moment, the driver uses the Linux kernel function cont_write_begin() to start even an asynchronous write to a file; this function looks like:
/*
* For moronic filesystems that do not allow holes in file.
* We may have to extend the file.
*/
int cont_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned flags,
struct page **pagep, void **fsdata,
get_block_t *get_block, loff_t *bytes)
{
struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
unsigned blocksize = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
unsigned zerofrom;
int err;
err = cont_expand_zero(file, mapping, pos, bytes);
if (err)
return err;
zerofrom = *bytes & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
if (pos+len > *bytes && zerofrom & (blocksize-1)) {
*bytes |= (blocksize-1);
(*bytes)++;
}
return block_write_begin(mapping, pos, len, flags, pagep, get_block);
}
That is a simple strategy but also a pagecache trasher (your log messages are a consequence of the call to cont_expand_zero() which does all the work, and is not asynchronous). If the filesystem were to split the two operations - one task to do the "real" write, and another one to do the zero filling, it'd appear snappier.
The way this could be achieved while still using the default linux filesystem utility interfaces were by internally creating two "virtual" files - one for the to-be-zerofilled area, and another for the actually-to-be-written data. The real file's directory entry and FAT cluster chain would only be updated once the background task is actually complete, by linking its last cluster with the first one of the "zerofill file" and the last cluster of that one with the first one of the "actual write file". One would also want to go for a directio write to do the zerofilling, in order to avoid trashing the pagecache.
Note: While all this is technically possible for sure, the question is how worthwhile would it be to do such a change ? Who needs this operation all the time ? What would side effects be ?
The existing (simple) code is perfectly acceptable for smaller skipping writes, you won't really notice its presence if you create a 1MB file and write a single byte at the end. It'll bite you only if you go for filesizes on the order of the limits of what the FAT filesystem allows you to do.
Other options ...
In some situations, the task at hand involves two (or more) steps:
freshly format (e.g.) a SD card with FAT
put one or more big files onto it to "pre-fill" the card
(app-dependent, optional)
pre-populate the files, or
put a loopback filesystem image into them
One of the cases I've worked on we've folded the first two - i.e. modified mkdosfs to pre-allocate/ pre-create files when making the (FAT32) filesystem. That's pretty simple, when writing the FAT tables just create allocated cluster chains instead of clusters filled with the "free" marker. It's also got the advantage that the data blocks are guaranteed to be contiguous, in case your app benefits from this. And you can decide to make mkdosfs not clear the previous contents of the data blocks. If you know, for example, that one of your preparation steps involves writing the entire data anyway or doing ext3-in-file-on-FAT (pretty common thing - linux appliance, sd card for data exchange with windows app/gui), then there's no need to zero out anything / double-write (once with zeroes, once with whatever-else). If your usecase fits this (i.e. formatting the card is a useful / normal step of the "initialize it for use" process anyway) then try it out; a suitably-modified mkdosfs is part of TomTom's dosfsutils sources, see mkdosfs.c search for the -N command line option handling.
When talking about preallocation, as mentioned, there's also posix_fallocate(). Currently on Linux when using FAT, this will do essentially the same as a manual dd ..., i.e. wait for the zerofill. But the specification of the function doesn't mandate it being synchronous. The block allocation (FAT cluster chain generation) would have to be done synchronously, but the VFAT on-disk dirent size update and the data block zerofills could be backgrounded / delayed (i.e. either done at low-prio in background or only done if explicitly requested via fdsync() / sync() so that the app can e.g. alloc blocks, write the contents with non-zeroes itself ...). That's technique / design though; I'm not aware of anyone having done that kernel modification yet, if only for experimenting.
I have a script that creates file system in a file on a linux machine. I see that to create the file system, it uses 'dd' with bs=x option, reads from /dev/zero and writes to a file. I think usually specifying ibs/obs/bs is useful to read from real hardware devices as one has specific block size constraints. In this case however, as it is reading from virtual device and writing to a file, I don't see any point behind using 'bs=x bytes' option. Is my understanding wrong here?
(Just in case if it helps, this file system is later on used to boot a qemu vm)
To understand block sizes, you have to be familiar with tape drives. If you're not interested in tape drives - for example, you don't think you're ever going to use one - then you can go back to sleep now.
Remember the tape drives from films in the 60s, 70s, maybe even 80s? The ones where the reel went spinning around, and so on? Not your Exabyte or even QIC - quarter-inch cartridge - tapes; your good old fashioned reel-to-reel half-inch tape drives? On those, block size mattered.
The data on a tape was written in blocks. Each block was separated from the next by an inter-record gap.
----+-------+-----+-------+-----+----
... | block | IRG | block | IRG | ...
----+-------+-----+-------+-----+----
Depending on the tape drive hardware and software, there were a variety of problems that could happen. For example, if the tape was written with a block size of 5120 bytes and you read the tape with a block size of 512 bytes, then the tape drive might read the first block, return you 512 bytes of it, and then discard the remaining data; the next read would start on the next block. Conversely, if the tape was written with a block size of 512 bytes and you requested blocks of 5120 bytes, you would get short reads; each read would return just 512 bytes, and if your software wasn't paying attention, you'd be reading garbage. There was also the issue that the tape drive had to get up to speed to read the block, and then slow down. The ASCII art suggests that the IRG was smaller than the data blocks; that was not necessarily the case. And it took time to read one block, overshoot the IRG, rewind backwards to get to the next block, and start forwards again. And if the tape drive didn't have the memory to buffer data - the cheaper ones did not - then you could seriously affect your tape drive performance.
War story: work prepared on newer machine with a slightly more modern tape drive. I wrote a tape using tar without a sensible block size (so it defaulted to 512 bytes). It was a large bit of software - must have been, oh, less than 100 MB in total (a long time ago, in other words). The tape wrote nicely because the machine was modern enough, and it took just a few seconds to do so. But, I had to get the material off the tape on a machine with an older tape drive, one that did not have any on-board buffer. So, it read the material, 512 bytes at a time, and the reel rocked forward, reading one block, and then rocked back all but maybe half an inch, and then read forwards to get to the next block, and then rocked back, and ... well, you could see it doing this, and since it took appreciable portions of a second to read each 512 byte block, the total time taken was horrendous. My flight was due to leave...and I needed to get that data across too. (It was long enough ago, and in a land far enough away, that last minute changes to flights weren't much of an option either.) To cut a long story short, it did get read - but if I'd used a sensible block size (such as 5120 bytes instead of the default of 512), I would have been done much, much quicker and with much less danger of missing the plane (but I did actually catch the plane, with maybe 20 minutes to spare, despite a taxi ride across Paris in the rush hour).
With more modern tape drives, there was enough memory on the drive to do buffering and getting a tape drive to stream - write continuously without reversing - was feasible. It used to be that I'd use a block size like 256 KB to get QIC tapes to stream. I've not done much with tape drives recently - let's see, not this millennium and not much for a few years before that, either; certainly not much since CD and DVD became the software distribution mechanisms of choice (when electronic download wasn't used).
But the block size really did matter in the old days. And dd provided good support for it. You could even transfer data from a tape drive that was written with, say, 4 KB block to another that you wanted to write with, say, 16 KB blocks, by specifying the ibs (input block size) separately from the obs (output block size). Darned useful!
Also, the count parameter is in terms of the (input) block size. It was useful to say 'dd bs=1024 count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/my/file/of/zeroes' to copy 1 MB of zeroes around. Or to copy 1 MB of a file.
The importance of dd is vastly diminished; it was an essential part of the armoury for anybody who worked with tape drives a decade or more ago.
The block size is the number of bytes that are read and written at a time. Presumably there is a count= option, and that is specified in units of the block size. If there is a skip= or seek= option, those will also be in block size units. However if you are reading and writing a regular file, and there are no disk errors, then the block size doesn't really matter as long as you can scale those parameters accordingly and they are still integers. However certain sizes may be more efficient than others.
For reading from /dev/zero, it doesn't matter. ibs/obs/bs specify how many bytes will be read at a time. It's helpful to choose a number based on the way bytes are read/written in the operating system. For instance, Linux usually reads from a hard drive in 4096 byte chunks. If you have at least some idea about how the underlying hardware reads/writes, it might be a good idea to specify ibs/obs/bs. By the way, if you specify bs, it will override whatever you specify for ibs and obs.
In addition to the great answer by Jonathan Leffler, keep in mind that the bs= option isn't always a substitute for using both ibs= and obs=, in particular for the old [ugly] days of tape drives.
The bs= option reserves the right for dd to write the data as soon as it's read. This can cause you to no longer have identically sized blocks on the output. Here is GNU's take on this, but the behavior dates back as far as I can remember (80's):
(bs=) Set both input and output block sizes to bytes. This makes dd read and write bytes per block, overriding any ‘ibs’ and ‘obs’ settings. In addition, if no data-transforming conv option is specified, input is copied to the output as soon as it’s read, even if it is smaller than the block size.
For instance, back in the QIC days on an old Sun system, if you did this:
tar cvf /dev/rst0c /bla
It would work, but cause an enormous amount of back and forth thrashing while the drive wrote a small block, and tried to backup and read to reposition itself properly for the next write.
If you swapped this with:
tar cvf - /bla | dd ibs=16K obs=16K of=/dev/rst0c
You'd get the QIC drive writing much larger chunks and not thrashing quite so much.
However, if you made the mistake of this:
tar cvf - /bla | dd bs=16K of=/dev/rst0c
You'd run the risk of having precisely the same thrashing you had before depending upon how much data was available at the time of each read.
Specifying both ibs= and obs= precludes this from happening.