"DisneyWizard the Fantasmic!"  writes:
> I did consider altering the block size to save transfer time, however,
> I assumed that since the base block size on both devices is 512, best
> not to add handling/conversion overhead, which utilized a minimal
> memory buffer.

You might want to check that, a lot of drives have 4KByte physical
sectors now. How much difference it makes in this use case is question
to be resolved by measurement rather than speculation though: on the one
hand, the kernel and the disk itself will both do buffering, on the
other hand by using such a small user-level block size you pay the
per-block costs (kernel entry/exit, etc) much more than you would
otherwise.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05