Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:53:07 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> Cc: Grant Peel <gpeel@thenetnow.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dd - cloning a disk. Message-ID: <cb5206420603120553y4c69ff5cx293539bbf1ad4251@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060312105141.K18712@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <001901c64517$9d891950$6701a8c0@GRANT> <44138FC9.30900@daleco.biz> <20060312105141.K18712@chylonia.3miasto.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/12/06, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> wrote: > > > > It is, with a few 'buts'. Firstly, the source should be mounted > > but may not - unless system is generally idle. fsck will be checking the > copy then, but with success. No matter what fsck says later, it's too dangerous. A FreeBSD system (as well as any other complicated OS) is never really idle in terms of disk I/O. On 3/12/06, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.3miasto.net> wrote: > > list sometime in the last 3-5 weeks. Giorgios Keramidas > > commented that "dd" was too slow for his tastes and > > dd is the fastest, but probably he used small block size. 64K is OK dd can be slower than dump/restore in quite a few cases, especially when disk is far from full.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420603120553y4c69ff5cx293539bbf1ad4251>