[CentOS] A questiong about replacing my failing drive
Rodrigo Barbosa
rodrigob at suespammers.org
Mon Jun 13 00:56:59 UTC 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:05:26PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Also I don't see why it would take ages ? It seems to be pretty
> sequential, it doesn't have any filesystem overhead. And in case you have
> bad blocks it is able to reduce blocksize to recover as much as possible
> (which of course is slower during recovery, there's no alternative though),
> with a filesystem you're pretty much f*cked.
When you are producing lots of copies, you don't want to copy
empty space. DD will copy everything.
> I'm not sure if you ever tried it, but dd (or ddrescue) is much faster
> than what you would normally see as throughput at the filesystem level,
> especialy when you have bad blocks.
True. That is why I said I recomend ghost for when you are producing
multiple copies. Not for backup, and definitively not for a recovery
procedure.
[]s
- --
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCrNnbpdyWzQ5b5ckRAl/lAJ0YHHG57pgU1FM++mx9dq6VjbpmowCeK5+B
HacVI/7mEiA6rKTYuyMhkVg=
=1h/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the CentOS
mailing list