on 7-4-2008 2:38 PM Robert Moskowitz spake the following:
You might want to think about the fact that the drive could map differently from the LBA between the usb adapter and directly hooked up to a system. I had a laptop that did that, and access was extremely slow until I re-formatted it and re-built the OS. Especially on older systems like you say you are using.William L. Maltby wrote:Well Clonezilla is busy cloning the drive, but there is a problem here cloning to a USB attached drive.On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:<snip>Yes, dd is actually pretty slow in wall clock time. Where it wins is in human time since you just type a short command line and go away, and it duplicates any setup work you've done in addition too installing the packages.But it's not as slow as most think. They just don't take advantage of capabilities, like bs=16384. This makes a *huge* difference in both system overhead and wall clock time.One of the partitions is LVM and since this is a drive clone, including the partition table and boot sector, both LVMs (source and target) have the same name. So Clonezilla switches to using DD with probably some bad parameters. After running an hour, it has only copied 4Gb out of 37Gb. Note that the USB port is v1.1.Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I had do this via Install instead.
-- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
