Use rsync if it's a working set of data, that is the data changes
regularly and you want to keep everything in sync. Otherwise DD for
speed!
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-
bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Dan Thurman
Sent: 01 December 2009 18:02
To: Fedora Users
Subject: To dd or to rsync, that's the question...
Which is the preferred "backup" solution?
As it seems, when I use rsync to copy data from disk1 partitionX
over to disk2 partition X, I noticed that if one uses Fedora Selinux,
one has to touch /.autorelabel for that partition. It seems to work,
except in cases where the UUID is being "hard-wired" especially
with HAL devices and I started noticing it in cases where xorg
devices are sometimes spitting out errors showing UUID devices,
and crashes Nautilus but recovers and it does this almost every time
the system is rebooted into Fedora.
On the other hand, if one decides to use dd instead, does this
preserve
the UUID of the devices including that of the disk partition and it
should work perfectly even without the use of /.autorelabel?
I am trying to get data off of disk1 which is failing (via smartd) and
wish to use the correct backup and restore method getting the data
off of disk1 onto disk2 without "integrity loss", whatever that means.
In the case of dd, it falls flat, if there are sector errors and this
would
not work, as in my case - so backup programs that do byte copy would
perhaps also fail. This was the reason I was forced to use rsync in
order
to get the data copied over (with errors: I had two files corrupted
and
I assumed that a reinstall of the OS would pickup the missing
pieces)
so this leads to Vista as follows on this case, however, I
experimented
on another system using dd and Vista, it seems to make no difference
at all when trying to 'upgrade' or reinstall the OS on top of the
existing
OS.
I noticed that dd was the only solution for XP and it works, on the
other hand it does not work for Vista. What I did in the Vista case
was to rsync the Vista partition to disk2/Vista partition, bootrec
/fixBoot,
set "active" (boot) to the drive2/Vista partition and completely
reinstall
Vista (because I could not figure out how to 'update' instead of
Install
as the Update was greyed out), and in doing it this way, the Vista/DVD
seemed to recognize the partition as such, but moved the contents to
"windows.old" and proceeded to complete the installation. Of course,
this means a complete manual reinstall of 3rd party software and user
profile, a royal pain in the a$$. Interestingly though, it appears
that
one does not need to reactivate the license, and I have yet to see it
being
asked for.
Any pointers/advice is appreciated!
Kind regards,
Dan
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines