0.6.6 is the current stable partimage. I'm not sure why there would be such a performance difference. Maybe dynamic linking vs static. Maybe optimization? Dunno.
Let's see what a shared lib updated version does.
Quote (WDef @ Dec. 21 2007,16:56)
I'm not sure why there would be such a performance difference.
I suspect that I had a partition error. When I have time I will try again DSL+optional partimage.UCI and inform later.
To be continued ...
*JT.I made mew trials, after solving a problem with another disk which gave me some errors when running Windows. But this was not the source of the observed differences:
DSL+partimage backup still was at a speed of 150-120 Mb/sec, instead of the speed of Parted Magic which was about 4 times faster.
I made another trial with Insert Linux that has also partimage incorporated, and the speed of the backup was about 600-400 Mb/sec as well.
So there is something that is slowing down the speed in DSL+partimage ...
*JT.I do not know if it is useful, but the usage of the memory informed by Insert during the operation was 99 %, and swap partition 5 %.
*JT.
Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 20 2007,18:14)
Make sure you aren't using PIO mode for your storage device (i.e. you have DMA enabled)
From the wiki:
PIO stands for Programmed Input-Output. It is nowdays a slow and inefficient data transfer mode. The data is transferred by the processor, byte by byte. This requires processor time and therefore causes a high and unwanted processor load. These issues are somewhat solved with DMA PIO modes may be tweaked with hdparm.
Run 'showbootcodes' to check setup. Also, DMA can cause cause problems if there is a hardware issue. (to check, run 'nodma' bootcode.)Next Page...
original here.