Jim, I disagree with you. I would be interested to know how dd would
handle read errors on the failing drive. :-) Have you completed many
rescue operations with drives whose reliability is questionable without
hickups only with dd???
If his failing drive is in a bad state and is likely to give persistent
I/O errors, doing a dd the way you describe it in your number list will
either abort the read operation or copy things inconsistently. Again I
would substitute dd with dd_rescue. If his blocks are OK, dd_rescue will
behave exactly as dd. If the blocks on the origin drive are broken, it
will persist until it copies as much data as possible.
GM
Jim Canfield wrote:
[1]m.roth2006@xxxxxxx wrote:
Troy,
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:23:26 -0700
From: Troy Knabe [2]<knabe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks. Just to clarify, I can't run the dd while the system is up and running normally?
Um, don't try to dd /dev, btw....
mark "me? tar? dd? no, never (what never? hardly ever....)"
Mark,
Did I give bad advice? I have used dd quite a bit and never had any
problems. Granted I am always copying to identical drives. Now that I
think about it, it would be important to have identical disk geomerty
(cylinders, heads, sectors). Sorry Troy, guess I'm exposing my ignorance.
:)
-Jim
References
Visible links
1. mailto:m.roth2006@xxxxxxx
2. mailto:knabe@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
