A: The difference is in handling of the write cache in RAM:
dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test The default behaviour of dd is to not “sync” (i.e. not ask the OS to completely write the data to disk before dd exiting). The above command will just commit your 128 MB of data into a RAM buffer (write cache) – this will be really fast and it will show you the hugely inflated benchmark result right away. However, the server in the background is still busy, continuing to write out data from the RAM cache to disk.
dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test; sync Absolutely identical to the previous case, as anyone who understands how *nix shell works should surely know that adding a ; sync does not affect the operation of previous command in any way, because it is executed independently, after the first command completes. So your (wrong) MB/sec value is already printed on screen while that sync is only preparing to be executed.
dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync This tells dd to require a complete “sync” once, right before it exits. So it commits the whole 128 MB of data, then tells the operating system: “OK, now ensure this is completely on disk”, only then measures the total time it took to do all that and calculates the benchmark result.
dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test oflag=dsync Here dd will ask for completely synchronous output to disk, i.e. ensure that its write requests don’t even return until the submitted data is on disk. In the above example, this will mean sync’ing once per megabyte, or 128 times in total. It would probably be the slowest mode, as the write cache is basically unused at all in this case.
Which one do you suggest?
dd bs=1M count=128 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync This behaviour is perhaps the closest to the way real-world tasks behave. If your server or VPS is really fast and the above test completes in a second or less, try increasing the count= number to 1024 or so, to get a more accurate averaged result.
