| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 21:16 on Monday 31 January 2011, Allan |
| 2 |
Gottlieb did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Jan 31 2011, Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Allan Gottlieb writes: |
| 6 |
> >> On Mon, Jan 31 2011, Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> > There is a PC with a 160 GB SATA drive, and I want to replace it with |
| 8 |
> >> > one of about 1 TB in size. Would this work? |
| 9 |
> >> > |
| 10 |
> >> > - attach 2nd drive via SATA port or USB->SATA convertor |
| 11 |
> >> > - boot from rescue CD |
| 12 |
> >> > - dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb |
| 13 |
> >> > - remove sda, attach sdb to where sda was |
| 14 |
> >> > - reboot |
| 15 |
> >> > - add other partitions or enlarge the last one |
| 16 |
> >> > |
| 17 |
> >> > I do not expect problems, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe the |
| 18 |
> >> > different drive geometry would have an effect on file system or at |
| 19 |
> >> > least to the Grub boot loader? |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> Won't dd'ing the whole disk will make the 1TB disk a 160GB disk. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Not really. Yes, the current partitioning scheme will not make more than |
| 24 |
> > the 160G available. But this can be changed easily later, all I need to |
| 25 |
> > do is call fdisk and add partitions. Or resize the last one. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Sure, but the other partitions will stay the same size. If you are |
| 28 |
> using lvm then that is no problem, if not I would think it is |
| 29 |
> constraining. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The pertinent question is what is on those partitions from the first to second |
| 32 |
last? Maybe they don't need to be any bigger than the original disk. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
/opt, /boot, /usr, %PORTDIR come to mind as likely candidates. Maybe the OP |
| 35 |
can live with that constraint. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives