IMHO it would be better to replace dd_rescue with ddrescue.
There are many users confused by ddrescue not being included in the
ddrescue package:
(http://gumptravels.blogspot.com/2009/09/ddrescue-ddrescue-gddrescue-gnuddrescue.html)
"I hadn't done a recovery in a while that needed special attention, and
ended up wasting a bunch of time fiddling the the ddrescue variants
before I found the one I had used in the past.
...
I promptly installed gddrescue using "apt-get install gddrescue" and
then tried to view the man pages, of course using "man gddrescue" ...
however, this is where some of the ddrescue confusion comes in,
"gddrescue" simply uses ddrescue for its binary and for its man pages...
(confusing), since "dd_rescue" actually uses a package name of
"ddrescue" (apt-get install ddrescue), while using dd_rescue for its
binary and man pages (once again, confusing)".
And here is a explanation of why dd_rhelp is so slow:
(http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#ddrescue)
"One problem with dd_rhelp is that it's a shell script, so it's really
slow and consumes massive resources. On one of my drives that had about
2900 bad sectors on it, dd_rhelp would waste upwards of 15 minutes
deciding what blocks to tell dd_rescue to try reading next. During that
time it makes about 100 new Unix processes every second".
Best regards,
Antonio.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
