Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:22:19 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Stephen <sdk@yuck.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: disk cloning (& a bit of picobsd) Message-ID: <200003142122.NAA02794@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:08:15 CST." <20000314150815.A20664@visi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:14:10AM -0500, Charles N. Owens wrote: > > > > I also am curious as to why use of dd in this way is bad. I've read a number > > of journal articles that advocate its use in just this way (another source, > > O'Reilly's new "Unix Backup & Recovery", by W Curtis Preston talks about its > > flexibility for certain backup/recovery applications). The key thing is to > > _really_ understand the strengths and weaknesses of whatever tool you're > > considering... and to do rigorous testing.... > > > > I'm not a ufs expert, but I had thought the downside to using dd is that it > copies the bad block map from source to target disk, rendering good disk > space unusable. Also, bad blocks on the target disk would never be mapped > out during the usual newfs. Newfs never mapped out bad blocks, and we don't support bad144 anymore, so these are all irrelevant. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003142122.NAA02794>