Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:49:50 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.com> To: krad <kraduk@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dd copy of FreeBSD-7.2 won't boot Message-ID: <20090625154950.GA83146@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <2C153FCDAC3B43BDADDD1B28CED80036@uk.tiscali.intl> References: <20090623032742.M54551@ezo.net> <2C153FCDAC3B43BDADDD1B28CED80036@uk.tiscali.intl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:11:21PM +0100, krad wrote: > Personally id stay away from dd. Create the partitions and file systems > manually, and install the boot loader, then rsync the data across. It will > be a lot faster in most cases, as unlike dd you wont be copying unused > space. Something like this should do the job I wouldn't say rsync is faster than dd, unless you have a lot of empty space or are migrating across a network. The nice thing about rsync is it if you restart it, it picks up where it left off so to speak. With dd you have to add two arguments. > Rsync -aPH --exclude=/mnt/** / /mnt ^ I often use: rsync -avHSPx / /mnt The "x" means don't cross file system boundaries, which is generally what you want when migrating file systems. > I'm assuming you weren't migrating due to a bad disk Actually using rsync to migrate a bad disk is preferrable over dd (presuming you have no backup), since rsync will skip and warn you aboud bad files, but "dd conv=noerror" could leave you in a bad situation if it skips over critical metadata blocks. I always try rsync first, with the source filesystem mounted read-only, and if that fails I'll fall back to dd. Actually if you have the space and it was a bad disk, I'd probably dd to a new disk or file, then mount that disk or file read-only, and then use rsync. -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090625154950.GA83146>