Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:08:15 -0600 From: Stephen <sdk@yuck.net> To: "Charles N. Owens" <owensc@enc.edu> Cc: Ken Bolingbroke <hacker@bolingbroke.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Radcliffe <pir@pir.net> Subject: Re: disk cloning (& a bit of picobsd) Message-ID: <20000314150815.A20664@visi.com> In-Reply-To: <38CD05C2.7159E85@enc.edu>; from Charles N. Owens on Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:14:10AM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003100905030.66391-100000@fremont.bolingbroke.com> <38CD05C2.7159E85@enc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 10:14:10AM -0500, Charles N. Owens wrote: > > I also am curious as to why use of dd in this way is bad. I've read a number > of journal articles that advocate its use in just this way (another source, > O'Reilly's new "Unix Backup & Recovery", by W Curtis Preston talks about its > flexibility for certain backup/recovery applications). The key thing is to > _really_ understand the strengths and weaknesses of whatever tool you're > considering... and to do rigorous testing.... > I'm not a ufs expert, but I had thought the downside to using dd is that it copies the bad block map from source to target disk, rendering good disk space unusable. Also, bad blocks on the target disk would never be mapped out during the usual newfs. In my opinion, if the machine is not dual booting an automated FreeBSD install with pre and post install scripts similar to Solaris jumpstart would be ideal. sk -- sdk@yuck.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000314150815.A20664>