1 |
Dear Philip, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Fri 24 Aug 2018 at 04:32:23 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
4 |
> I want to make a copy of a partition which I can use to replace it, |
5 |
> if some catastrophe damages the partition or wipes it out ; |
6 |
> it needs to be byte-byte identical, incl all permissions. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Can I use 'dd' ? -- eg 'dd if=/mnt/xxx of=/mnt/yyy', |
9 |
> where the partition has been mounted at /mnt/xxx |
10 |
> & a USB stick has been mounted at /mnt/yyy . Will that do the job ? |
11 |
|
12 |
If you want to make a byte-by-byte copy of a partition, the easiest |
13 |
way in my opinion is to dd the (unmounted) partition, e.g. |
14 |
if=/dev/sda1. You could also do that with the entire drive, e.g. |
15 |
if=/dev/sda. |
16 |
|
17 |
> There seems also to be an issue re 'bs=<some number of bytes>' : |
18 |
> what size is best ? i plan to use USB 3.0 for quicker copying. |
19 |
|
20 |
For optimal performance the block size should be a multiple of the |
21 |
device’s physical block size. Old hard drives had 512-B blocks, more |
22 |
recent ones have larger 4-KiB physical blocks that are sometimes |
23 |
software-emulated to appear as 512-B blocks. In my experience it is |
24 |
faster to use even larger block sizes; I usually use bs=1M. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Does it matter how the USB stick is formatted ? |
27 |
> Can I use a raw stick with the usual default VFAT formatting ? |
28 |
> Might it be better to replace that with a Linux FS, eg Ext2 ? |
29 |
|
30 |
The lowest overhead is when you write the back-up to a raw partition |
31 |
of the same size, e.g. of=/dev/sdb1. You can also write it to a |
32 |
filesystem, which might make it easier to manage multiple back-ups. |
33 |
Since all permissions etc. are stored in the back-up file, the choice |
34 |
of file system does not really matter, though the back-up file might be |
35 |
too large for VFAT (max ~4 GiB). |
36 |
|
37 |
Sincerely, |
38 |
|
39 |
Bas |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Sebastiaan L. Zoutendijk | slzoutendijk@×××××.com |