On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:56:38 +0100 "b.n." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Farrell ha scritto: > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:25:06 +0100 > > "b.n." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it is; however if the partition is live the data could be messed up > > if you read half of an overwritten file or something. in other > > words, it works really well on partitions that aren't live, and if > > the partition is live, you could potentially have a bad file. You > > might even potentially have a bad partition. This all is from my > > own consideration; I wouldn't bet the house on it. > > Well, dd-ing live partitions was out of the question -however thanks > for the reminder :) I've done it, but can't say as though I intend to do it on any important systems. Too chancy. > But I was thinking: if my old drive is 200 Gb and my new drive is 320 > Gb, what happens to the partition table? That is, the old partition > table will refer to a 200 Gb disk, on a 320 Gb disk. What happens to > the 120 Gb left? Are they recognized as an empty partition? Are they > left unrecognized? Instead of dd-ing the entire drive, why not repartition the drive as you see fit, creating partitions of the same size, and then dding the actual partitions over to the disk, rather than the whole disk. there's one precaution; make sure the units are the same. most disks I see have a unit size of 8225280 bytes, but a few old drives are different, so be careful. The first time I did this, i kind of documented it here: http://spore.ath.cx/~dan/doc/xpmove.html might be useful to you. > Maybe I should just dd the MBR and then repartition the disk and use > cp for the rest. you could do that, but dd should be significantly faster, because it reads directly from the platters without going through the filesystem. you could dd the mbr, but I recommend simply re-installing grub to the new drive first. it's about as easy as using dd. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
