xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dd and xfs

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dd and xfs
From: Yannick Ribau <yannick.ribau@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:11:23 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3BF145FE.2050003@xxxxxxx> <1005669205.19062.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3BF15156.9050104@xxxxxxx> <1005670732.22728.0.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011011
I just did "man xfsdump", as the partitions are the exact same, I'm not interrested in saving space, but maybe xfsdump will do the job better than dd (if possible) ?

Yannick.

Steve Lord wrote:

On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 10:59, Yannick Ribau wrote:

So it might work if I boot from a rescue CD with a kernel supporting xfs, then do the dd command without mounting the partitions (using /dev/hda...) ?

Yes, it would work in this case - you are just creating an identical
copy of the fs. But if this is an option, then so is xfsdump/restore
which would take up less space.

Steve

Yannick.

Steve Lord wrote:

On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 10:10, Yannick Ribau wrote:

hi all,

is it possible to make a "dd conv=noerror /dev/hda2 /dev/hda3" to have a complete backup of my root filesystem, then do a "dd conv=noerror /dev/hda3 /dev/hda2" to restore it, in case of a soft filesystem problem ?

(both partitions have the exact same size)

On a live filesystem this is not too smart an idea, the block cache and
the live filesystem are not totally coherent - in fact depending on the
kernel version they can be totally incoherent (changes to one are
invisible in the other).

You at least need to do a remount readonly to make the disk
image stable - and this will fail if a file is open for writing

Steve

Yannick.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>