| 1 |
On 31/03/19 09:08, Andreas Fink wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 08:38:43 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'm planning to migrate my system soon, but I'm going to do that a bit |
| 6 |
>> differently. I'll dd my home partition across (I've got hard-links |
| 7 |
>> galore, so a cp or rsync or whatever will have massive conniptions). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What's wrong with an "rsync -aH"? This preserves hard links (given that the target system |
| 10 |
> supports them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It chews up RAM like it's going out of fashion? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I honestly don't think that a dd is necessary. I have copied several times from one |
| 15 |
> harddisk to another with different harddis partition sizes, but with enough free space on |
| 16 |
> the target. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I do the copying by booting a live usb stick, then I mount the source and the target |
| 19 |
> partitions, and issue the rsync command (If you need extended attributes to be synced |
| 20 |
> too, then there is an option for rsync too, e.g. ACL). |
| 21 |
> rsync -aH --numeric-ids /path/to/source /path/to/target/ |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
If I'm booting off a live-CD or similar, then I'm not worried about the |
| 24 |
system being available for use, and streaming the data at a level BELOW |
| 25 |
the file system is far more efficient and quicker. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Seriously, I'm worried that the number of hard links could push the |
| 28 |
system into thrashing, at which point an rsync will appear to die ... |
| 29 |
(been there done that). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Brute-force copying the partition just seems so much easier than |
| 32 |
worrying about the contents of the file system on it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Cheers, |
| 35 |
Wol |
Archives