George Magklaras wrote:
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.
You are right, I mentioned previously he may have problems if the drive
was actually failing, dd_rescue never even came to mind. Thanks for
pointing it out.
-Jim
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
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
