-----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-----