From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 19 17:36:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954CF106566C for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:36:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.78.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC9E8FC0A for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:36:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.6]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5F52842F; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id E60A81CC27; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:36:47 -0400 (EDT) To: Peter Boosten References: <48810956.5090905@boosten.org> <200807191137.21771.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> <4881901C.8000504@boosten.org> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:36:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4881901C.8000504@boosten.org> (Peter Boosten's message of "Sat\, 19 Jul 2008 08\:56\:28 +0200") Message-ID: <447ibhixn4.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dump and restore X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:36:55 -0000 Peter Boosten writes: > Malcolm Kay wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:51 am, Peter Boosten wrote: >>> >>> The /usr/ partition was 74Gb, and it took (according to dump >>> 52631 seconds (~ 14.5 hours) to copy. Both disks are IDE, in >>> the same machine on different IDE controllers. >>> >> The time for dump/restore normally depends more on the occupancy of >> the partition than its actual size. This is one reason why we avoid >> using dd for this purpose as we must then copy the entire >> 74Gb rather than just that used. >> > > Hmmm, I didn't even know it was possible to dump a partition > unmounted. Try that next time then. The actual partition size was > ~200GB, but around 74Gb data. If you can, it's always *much* preferable to dump an unmounted partition. I suspect your problems here had more to do with the bad disk, though. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/