-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Monday 2007-04-30 at 13:33 +0200, jdd wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > dd is dumb: if you take the image of a 100 GB disk and dd it to a new 200
> > GB disk, you loose 100 GB.
>
> for sure.
>
> but each system have the pros and cons.
>
> using cp or tar makes you at risk of losing a linked file or a "." (dot)
> invisible file. It's faily difficult to figure out what is important and what
> is not.
Er... you should not loose any file nor link - if you use the right
options. Everything is saved. You might loose extended attributes, though.
> dd (or similar) make a true backup: all is backed up, and the result can be
> gzipped for space saving (see also "partimage").
It even stores empty space! It has the big dissadvantage of needing the
destination be of the same size as the original - and that's a situation
that doesn't always occur. A tgz is more versatile.
When I do a dd, I mount the resulting image file in a loop, and use "mc"
to copy over the "insides". I don't dd back the image.
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFGNduetTMYHG2NR9URAlzyAJ9p4q7IpPU0+Xtmhvx4YX3kEY+PJACfWI+c
NlOEfPgAZblxP9qm8ZYHMDY=
=1H3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
