Hello,
luminair wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddrescue#Recovery-oriented_variants_of_dd
It says "Linux lacks "raw" disk devices like *BSD has, which makes it
less desirable for low-level data recovery," is this true, or just
FUD? Should I use FreeBSD when I try to recover my disk?
I guess it is FUD. For example see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_device where it says:
"On Linux raw devices are deprecated and scheduled for removal, because
the O_DIRECT flag can be used instead."
Ddrescue can use O_DIRECT (option -d), but be aware that "Using direct
disc access, or reading from a raw device, may be slower than normal
cached reading for hard discs (but faster for floppies). In this case
you may want to make a first pass using normal cached reads, and use
direct disc access, or a raw device, only to recover the good sectors
inside the failed blocks."
Also, there is a recommended procedure there, of ddrescue -n and then
ddrescue -r 1 afterwards. Is that your recommendation? Otherwise what
is the good of it. You can't trust wikipedia unless the expert wrote
it.
The advantage of using -n, then -r1 (or nothing), is that you can use
different options in each case. For example larger cluster size in first
try for maximum speed, then direct disc access in second try to maximize
the amount of data recovered.
Regards,
Antonio.
_______________________________________________
Bug-ddrescue mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
