dd is producing a 32 MB random file instead of 1 GB












48














I wanted to produce a 1 GB random file, so I used following command.



dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1


But instead every time I launch this command I get a 32 MB file:



<11:58:40>$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1
0+1 records in
0+1 records out
33554431 bytes (34 MB, 32 MiB) copied, 0,288321 s, 116 MB/s


What is wrong?










share|improve this question




















  • 3




    IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
    – Bakuriu
    2 days ago










  • @Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
    – Konrad Gajewski
    2 days ago












  • @KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
    – Xen2050
    yesterday






  • 4




    @Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
    – Kaz
    15 hours ago












  • Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
    – grawity
    6 hours ago
















48














I wanted to produce a 1 GB random file, so I used following command.



dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1


But instead every time I launch this command I get a 32 MB file:



<11:58:40>$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1
0+1 records in
0+1 records out
33554431 bytes (34 MB, 32 MiB) copied, 0,288321 s, 116 MB/s


What is wrong?










share|improve this question




















  • 3




    IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
    – Bakuriu
    2 days ago










  • @Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
    – Konrad Gajewski
    2 days ago












  • @KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
    – Xen2050
    yesterday






  • 4




    @Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
    – Kaz
    15 hours ago












  • Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
    – grawity
    6 hours ago














48












48








48


5





I wanted to produce a 1 GB random file, so I used following command.



dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1


But instead every time I launch this command I get a 32 MB file:



<11:58:40>$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1
0+1 records in
0+1 records out
33554431 bytes (34 MB, 32 MiB) copied, 0,288321 s, 116 MB/s


What is wrong?










share|improve this question















I wanted to produce a 1 GB random file, so I used following command.



dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1


But instead every time I launch this command I get a 32 MB file:



<11:58:40>$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1G count=1
0+1 records in
0+1 records out
33554431 bytes (34 MB, 32 MiB) copied, 0,288321 s, 116 MB/s


What is wrong?







script dd random-number-generator






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 28 at 12:30









Peter Mortensen

8,331166184




8,331166184










asked Dec 27 at 11:01









Trismegistos

34137




34137








  • 3




    IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
    – Bakuriu
    2 days ago










  • @Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
    – Konrad Gajewski
    2 days ago












  • @KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
    – Xen2050
    yesterday






  • 4




    @Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
    – Kaz
    15 hours ago












  • Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
    – grawity
    6 hours ago














  • 3




    IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
    – Bakuriu
    2 days ago










  • @Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
    – Konrad Gajewski
    2 days ago












  • @KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
    – Xen2050
    yesterday






  • 4




    @Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
    – Kaz
    15 hours ago












  • Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
    – grawity
    6 hours ago








3




3




IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
– Bakuriu
2 days ago




IMHO I don't think there are many valid use cases for dd at all. I'd use head, cat or rsync in its place almost always. And your question if one of the reasons why the alternatives are usually safer.
– Bakuriu
2 days ago












@Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
– Konrad Gajewski
2 days ago






@Bakuriu - also, if you just want to produce a file full of zeroes (or rather you do not care about what is inside it) use truncate. It is much faster.
– Konrad Gajewski
2 days ago














@KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
– Xen2050
yesterday




@KonradGajewski FYI truncate tries to make a sparse file (if that matters)
– Xen2050
yesterday




4




4




@Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
– Kaz
15 hours ago






@Bakuriu head cannot do this task without the -c option that isn't in POSIX. I don't know any version of cat which can solve this. rsync is a completely nonstandard utility. That is neither here nr there; skimming through its man page, I don't see how it can solve this problem, either.
– Kaz
15 hours ago














Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
– grawity
6 hours ago




Technically, /dev/urandom isn't in POSIX either...
– grawity
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















89














bs, the buffer size, means the size of a single read() call done by dd.



(For example, both bs=1M count=1 and bs=1k count=1k will result in a 1 MiB file, but the first version will do it in a single step, while the second will do it in 1024 small chunks.)



Regular files can be read at nearly any buffer size (as long as that buffer fits in RAM), but devices and "virtual" files often work very close to the individual calls and have some arbitrary restriction of how much data they'll produce per read() call.



For /dev/urandom, this limit is defined in urandom_read() in drivers/char/random.c:



#define ENTROPY_SHIFT 3

static ssize_t
urandom_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
{
nbytes = min_t(size_t, nbytes, INT_MAX >> (ENTROPY_SHIFT + 3));
...
}


This means that every time the function is called, it will clamp the requested size to 33554431 bytes.



By default, unlike most other tools, dd will not retry after receiving less data than requested – you get the 32 MiB and that's it. (To make it retry automatically, as in Kamil's answer, you'll need to specify iflag=fullblock.)





Note also that "the size of a single read()" means that the whole buffer must fit in memory at once, so massive block sizes also correspond to massive memory usage by dd.



And it's all pointless because you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks – syscalls aren't the slow part here, the random number generator is.



So for simplicity, just use head -c 1G /dev/urandom > output.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
    – marcelm
    Dec 27 at 20:43






  • 3




    @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 11:01






  • 4




    I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 12:37






  • 5




    @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
    – marcelm
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
    – marcelm
    2 days ago



















20














dd may read less than ibs (note: bs specifies both ibs and obs), unless iflag=fullblock is specified. 0+1 records in indicates that 0 full blocks and 1 partial block was read. However any full or partial block increases the counter.



I don't know the exact mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case. I guess any block is read to the memory before it's written, so memory management may interfere (but this is only a guess). Edit: this concurrent answer explains the mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case.



Anyway, I don't recommend such large bs. I would use bs=1M count=1024. The most important thing is: without iflag=fullblock any read attempt may read less than ibs (unless ibs=1, I think, this is quite inefficient though).



So if you need to read some exact amount of data, use iflag=fullblock. Note iflag is not required by POSIX, your dd may not support it. According to this answer ibs=1 is probably the only POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes. Of course if you change ibs then you will need to recalculate the count. In your case lowering ibs to 32M or less will probably fix the issue, even without iflag=fullblock.



In my Kubuntu I would fix your command like this:



dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1M count=1024 iflag=fullblock





share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "3"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1388082%2fdd-is-producing-a-32-mb-random-file-instead-of-1-gb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    89














    bs, the buffer size, means the size of a single read() call done by dd.



    (For example, both bs=1M count=1 and bs=1k count=1k will result in a 1 MiB file, but the first version will do it in a single step, while the second will do it in 1024 small chunks.)



    Regular files can be read at nearly any buffer size (as long as that buffer fits in RAM), but devices and "virtual" files often work very close to the individual calls and have some arbitrary restriction of how much data they'll produce per read() call.



    For /dev/urandom, this limit is defined in urandom_read() in drivers/char/random.c:



    #define ENTROPY_SHIFT 3

    static ssize_t
    urandom_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
    {
    nbytes = min_t(size_t, nbytes, INT_MAX >> (ENTROPY_SHIFT + 3));
    ...
    }


    This means that every time the function is called, it will clamp the requested size to 33554431 bytes.



    By default, unlike most other tools, dd will not retry after receiving less data than requested – you get the 32 MiB and that's it. (To make it retry automatically, as in Kamil's answer, you'll need to specify iflag=fullblock.)





    Note also that "the size of a single read()" means that the whole buffer must fit in memory at once, so massive block sizes also correspond to massive memory usage by dd.



    And it's all pointless because you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks – syscalls aren't the slow part here, the random number generator is.



    So for simplicity, just use head -c 1G /dev/urandom > output.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
      – marcelm
      Dec 27 at 20:43






    • 3




      @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 11:01






    • 4




      I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 12:37






    • 5




      @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
      – marcelm
      2 days ago






    • 3




      @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
      – marcelm
      2 days ago
















    89














    bs, the buffer size, means the size of a single read() call done by dd.



    (For example, both bs=1M count=1 and bs=1k count=1k will result in a 1 MiB file, but the first version will do it in a single step, while the second will do it in 1024 small chunks.)



    Regular files can be read at nearly any buffer size (as long as that buffer fits in RAM), but devices and "virtual" files often work very close to the individual calls and have some arbitrary restriction of how much data they'll produce per read() call.



    For /dev/urandom, this limit is defined in urandom_read() in drivers/char/random.c:



    #define ENTROPY_SHIFT 3

    static ssize_t
    urandom_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
    {
    nbytes = min_t(size_t, nbytes, INT_MAX >> (ENTROPY_SHIFT + 3));
    ...
    }


    This means that every time the function is called, it will clamp the requested size to 33554431 bytes.



    By default, unlike most other tools, dd will not retry after receiving less data than requested – you get the 32 MiB and that's it. (To make it retry automatically, as in Kamil's answer, you'll need to specify iflag=fullblock.)





    Note also that "the size of a single read()" means that the whole buffer must fit in memory at once, so massive block sizes also correspond to massive memory usage by dd.



    And it's all pointless because you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks – syscalls aren't the slow part here, the random number generator is.



    So for simplicity, just use head -c 1G /dev/urandom > output.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
      – marcelm
      Dec 27 at 20:43






    • 3




      @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 11:01






    • 4




      I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 12:37






    • 5




      @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
      – marcelm
      2 days ago






    • 3




      @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
      – marcelm
      2 days ago














    89












    89








    89






    bs, the buffer size, means the size of a single read() call done by dd.



    (For example, both bs=1M count=1 and bs=1k count=1k will result in a 1 MiB file, but the first version will do it in a single step, while the second will do it in 1024 small chunks.)



    Regular files can be read at nearly any buffer size (as long as that buffer fits in RAM), but devices and "virtual" files often work very close to the individual calls and have some arbitrary restriction of how much data they'll produce per read() call.



    For /dev/urandom, this limit is defined in urandom_read() in drivers/char/random.c:



    #define ENTROPY_SHIFT 3

    static ssize_t
    urandom_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
    {
    nbytes = min_t(size_t, nbytes, INT_MAX >> (ENTROPY_SHIFT + 3));
    ...
    }


    This means that every time the function is called, it will clamp the requested size to 33554431 bytes.



    By default, unlike most other tools, dd will not retry after receiving less data than requested – you get the 32 MiB and that's it. (To make it retry automatically, as in Kamil's answer, you'll need to specify iflag=fullblock.)





    Note also that "the size of a single read()" means that the whole buffer must fit in memory at once, so massive block sizes also correspond to massive memory usage by dd.



    And it's all pointless because you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks – syscalls aren't the slow part here, the random number generator is.



    So for simplicity, just use head -c 1G /dev/urandom > output.






    share|improve this answer














    bs, the buffer size, means the size of a single read() call done by dd.



    (For example, both bs=1M count=1 and bs=1k count=1k will result in a 1 MiB file, but the first version will do it in a single step, while the second will do it in 1024 small chunks.)



    Regular files can be read at nearly any buffer size (as long as that buffer fits in RAM), but devices and "virtual" files often work very close to the individual calls and have some arbitrary restriction of how much data they'll produce per read() call.



    For /dev/urandom, this limit is defined in urandom_read() in drivers/char/random.c:



    #define ENTROPY_SHIFT 3

    static ssize_t
    urandom_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
    {
    nbytes = min_t(size_t, nbytes, INT_MAX >> (ENTROPY_SHIFT + 3));
    ...
    }


    This means that every time the function is called, it will clamp the requested size to 33554431 bytes.



    By default, unlike most other tools, dd will not retry after receiving less data than requested – you get the 32 MiB and that's it. (To make it retry automatically, as in Kamil's answer, you'll need to specify iflag=fullblock.)





    Note also that "the size of a single read()" means that the whole buffer must fit in memory at once, so massive block sizes also correspond to massive memory usage by dd.



    And it's all pointless because you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks – syscalls aren't the slow part here, the random number generator is.



    So for simplicity, just use head -c 1G /dev/urandom > output.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Dec 27 at 12:30

























    answered Dec 27 at 11:29









    grawity

    232k35490546




    232k35490546








    • 7




      "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
      – marcelm
      Dec 27 at 20:43






    • 3




      @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 11:01






    • 4




      I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 12:37






    • 5




      @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
      – marcelm
      2 days ago






    • 3




      @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
      – marcelm
      2 days ago














    • 7




      "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
      – marcelm
      Dec 27 at 20:43






    • 3




      @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 11:01






    • 4




      I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
      – Andrew Henle
      Dec 28 at 12:37






    • 5




      @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
      – marcelm
      2 days ago






    • 3




      @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
      – marcelm
      2 days ago








    7




    7




    "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
    – marcelm
    Dec 27 at 20:43




    "... you usually won't gain any performance when going above ~16–32 MiB blocks" - In my experience, you tend not to gain much, or even lose performance above 64-128 kilobyte. At that point, you're well in the diminishing returns wrt syscall cost, and cache contention starts to play a role.
    – marcelm
    Dec 27 at 20:43




    3




    3




    @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 11:01




    @marcelm I've helped architect high performance systems where IO performance would improve as block size increased to 1-2 MB blocks, and in some cases up to 8 MB or so. Per LUN. And as filesystems were constructed using multiple parallel LUNs, to get get best performance meant using multiple threads for IO, each doing 1 MB+ blocks. Sustained IO rates were over 1 GB/sec. And those were all spinning disks, so I can see high-performance arrays of SSDs swallowing or generating data faster and faster as the block size grows to 16 or even 32 MB blocks. Easily. Maybe even larger.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 11:01




    4




    4




    I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 12:37




    I'll explicitly note that iflag=fullblock is a GNU extension to the POSIX dd utility. As the question doesn't specify Linux, I think the use of Linux-specific extensions should probably be explicitly noted lest some future reader trying to solve a similar issue on a non-Linux system be confused.
    – Andrew Henle
    Dec 28 at 12:37




    5




    5




    @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
    – marcelm
    2 days ago




    @AndrewHenle Ah, interesting! I did a quick test with dd on my machine, with block sizes from 1k to 512M. Reading from an Intel 750 SSD, optimal performance (about 1300MiB/s) was achieved at 2MiB blocks, roughly matching your results. Larger block sizes neither helped nor hindered. Reading from /dev/zero, optimal performance (almost 20GiB/s) was at 64KiB and 128KiB blocks; both smaller and larger blocks decreased performance, roughly matching my previous comment. Bottom line: benchmark for your actual situation. And of course, neither of us benchmarked /dev/random :P
    – marcelm
    2 days ago




    3




    3




    @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
    – marcelm
    2 days ago




    @Xen2050 I did some more quick tests, and it appears dd is faster. A quick strace showed that head uses 8KiB reads, and two 4KiB writes, which is interesting (GNU coreutils 8.26 on Debian 9.6 / Linux 4.8). head speeds are indeed somewhere between dd bs=4k and dd bs=8k. head speeds are down ~40% compared to dd if=/dev/zero bs=64k and down ~25% compared to dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 bs=2M. The reads from /dev/zero are of course more CPU-limited, but for the SSD I/O queing also plays a role. It's a bigger difference than I expected.
    – marcelm
    2 days ago













    20














    dd may read less than ibs (note: bs specifies both ibs and obs), unless iflag=fullblock is specified. 0+1 records in indicates that 0 full blocks and 1 partial block was read. However any full or partial block increases the counter.



    I don't know the exact mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case. I guess any block is read to the memory before it's written, so memory management may interfere (but this is only a guess). Edit: this concurrent answer explains the mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case.



    Anyway, I don't recommend such large bs. I would use bs=1M count=1024. The most important thing is: without iflag=fullblock any read attempt may read less than ibs (unless ibs=1, I think, this is quite inefficient though).



    So if you need to read some exact amount of data, use iflag=fullblock. Note iflag is not required by POSIX, your dd may not support it. According to this answer ibs=1 is probably the only POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes. Of course if you change ibs then you will need to recalculate the count. In your case lowering ibs to 32M or less will probably fix the issue, even without iflag=fullblock.



    In my Kubuntu I would fix your command like this:



    dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1M count=1024 iflag=fullblock





    share|improve this answer




























      20














      dd may read less than ibs (note: bs specifies both ibs and obs), unless iflag=fullblock is specified. 0+1 records in indicates that 0 full blocks and 1 partial block was read. However any full or partial block increases the counter.



      I don't know the exact mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case. I guess any block is read to the memory before it's written, so memory management may interfere (but this is only a guess). Edit: this concurrent answer explains the mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case.



      Anyway, I don't recommend such large bs. I would use bs=1M count=1024. The most important thing is: without iflag=fullblock any read attempt may read less than ibs (unless ibs=1, I think, this is quite inefficient though).



      So if you need to read some exact amount of data, use iflag=fullblock. Note iflag is not required by POSIX, your dd may not support it. According to this answer ibs=1 is probably the only POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes. Of course if you change ibs then you will need to recalculate the count. In your case lowering ibs to 32M or less will probably fix the issue, even without iflag=fullblock.



      In my Kubuntu I would fix your command like this:



      dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1M count=1024 iflag=fullblock





      share|improve this answer


























        20












        20








        20






        dd may read less than ibs (note: bs specifies both ibs and obs), unless iflag=fullblock is specified. 0+1 records in indicates that 0 full blocks and 1 partial block was read. However any full or partial block increases the counter.



        I don't know the exact mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case. I guess any block is read to the memory before it's written, so memory management may interfere (but this is only a guess). Edit: this concurrent answer explains the mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case.



        Anyway, I don't recommend such large bs. I would use bs=1M count=1024. The most important thing is: without iflag=fullblock any read attempt may read less than ibs (unless ibs=1, I think, this is quite inefficient though).



        So if you need to read some exact amount of data, use iflag=fullblock. Note iflag is not required by POSIX, your dd may not support it. According to this answer ibs=1 is probably the only POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes. Of course if you change ibs then you will need to recalculate the count. In your case lowering ibs to 32M or less will probably fix the issue, even without iflag=fullblock.



        In my Kubuntu I would fix your command like this:



        dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1M count=1024 iflag=fullblock





        share|improve this answer














        dd may read less than ibs (note: bs specifies both ibs and obs), unless iflag=fullblock is specified. 0+1 records in indicates that 0 full blocks and 1 partial block was read. However any full or partial block increases the counter.



        I don't know the exact mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case. I guess any block is read to the memory before it's written, so memory management may interfere (but this is only a guess). Edit: this concurrent answer explains the mechanism that makes dd read a block that is less than 1G in this particular case.



        Anyway, I don't recommend such large bs. I would use bs=1M count=1024. The most important thing is: without iflag=fullblock any read attempt may read less than ibs (unless ibs=1, I think, this is quite inefficient though).



        So if you need to read some exact amount of data, use iflag=fullblock. Note iflag is not required by POSIX, your dd may not support it. According to this answer ibs=1 is probably the only POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes. Of course if you change ibs then you will need to recalculate the count. In your case lowering ibs to 32M or less will probably fix the issue, even without iflag=fullblock.



        In my Kubuntu I would fix your command like this:



        dd if=/dev/urandom of=output bs=1M count=1024 iflag=fullblock






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Dec 27 at 11:34

























        answered Dec 27 at 11:29









        Kamil Maciorowski

        24.5k155277




        24.5k155277






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1388082%2fdd-is-producing-a-32-mb-random-file-instead-of-1-gb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Angular Downloading a file using contenturl with Basic Authentication

            Olmecas

            Can't read property showImagePicker of undefined in react native iOS