About the dd method: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:30:58 -0400, Jerry McAllister <jerr...@msu.edu> wrote: > It can be used, but it is not a good way to do it.
For regular backups or even for cloning, it's not very performant, I agree. I'm mostly using this method for forensic purposes, when I need a copy of a media (a whole disk, one slice or a particular partition) to toy around with, so I don't mess up the original data. > That is because it copies sector by sector and the new > disk/filesystem may not match the old exactly. That's a known problem. Another problem is time complexity. The dd program does copy everything - even the unused disk blocks (which don't need to be copied). This makes this process often last very long. > Besides > when it is newly written on a file by file basis, it can > be more efficiently laid out and accomodate any changes in > size and sector addressing. dd cannot do that. That's true. This is the point where tools like cpdup and rsync come into mind (according to creating backups or clones). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"