krad writes:
On a side note. Anyone building new systems manually from the shell I would
recommend using GPT labels if you can. Apart from not having the 8 fs limit
(128 iirc) gpart is a dam sight nicer to use than bsdlabel, and scripting it
Any links on GPT on 8?
Found this tutorial for 7
htt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:15:00 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block
wrote:
> For me, it would be because dealing with an individual 512-byte
> partition table file is easier than decompressing a multi-gigabyte image
> file to get at the first 512 bytes.
There is a point where a dd copy of the MBR is quite
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, RW wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:08:43 -0600 (MDT)
Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, RW wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:31 +0200
Polytropon wrote:
doing 1:1 copies with dd is always possible and will
keep content identically; remember to copy the MBR separate
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:32:33 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:31 +0200
> Polytropon wrote:
>
> > doing 1:1 copies with dd is always possible and will
> > keep content identically; remember to copy the MBR separately
> > with bs=512 and count=1 from the /dev/ad{source} device.
>
> Wh
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:08:43 -0600 (MDT)
Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, RW wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:31 +0200
> > Polytropon wrote:
> >
> >> doing 1:1 copies with dd is always possible and will
> >> keep content identically; remember to copy the MBR separately
> >> with
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, RW wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:31 +0200
Polytropon wrote:
doing 1:1 copies with dd is always possible and will
keep content identically; remember to copy the MBR separately
with bs=512 and count=1 from the /dev/ad{source} device.
Why?
Because it contains the part
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:31 +0200
Polytropon wrote:
> doing 1:1 copies with dd is always possible and will
> keep content identically; remember to copy the MBR separately
> with bs=512 and count=1 from the /dev/ad{source} device.
Why?
___
freebsd-ques
2009/9/29 Polytropon
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:07:31 +0100, krad wrote:
> > If your going to do all the partitoning manually its not to much more
> work
> > to newfs them as well.
>
> Partitioning can be automated, as well as newfs, which does
> take only seconds on a TB-sized disk. If you want t
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:07:31 +0100, krad wrote:
> If your going to do all the partitoning manually its not to much more work
> to newfs them as well.
Partitioning can be automated, as well as newfs, which does
take only seconds on a TB-sized disk. If you want to avoid
this, doing 1:1 copies with
2009/9/28 Polytropon
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:14:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
> > Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
>
> For FreeBSD, I'd tend to use dump + restore, because that's
> their main purpose.
>
>
>
> > Clonezilla does a nice job with OS's other than *BSD (It uses dd (
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:14:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
> Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
For FreeBSD, I'd tend to use dump + restore, because that's
their main purpose.
> Clonezilla does a nice job with OS's other than *BSD (It uses dd (iirc))
> and that takes forever (at l
On 28 Sep 2009 15:02, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:14:44 -0500, Chris rac...@makeworld.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
>
> Preferably fast, no need to install a base OS, easy to clone and
> restore. Of co
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:14:44 -0500, Chris wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
>
> Preferably fast, no need to install a base OS, easy to clone and
> restore. Of course, the key is fast.
>
> Clonezilla does a nice job with OS's other than *BSD (It uses
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Chris wrote:
Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
Preferably fast, no need to install a base OS, easy to clone and
restore. Of course, the key is fast.
Clonezilla uses ntfsclone or partimage, both programs that have built-in
knowledge of specific fil
Greetings,
Please suggest a cloning method comparable to Clonezilla.
Preferably fast, no need to install a base OS, easy to clone and
restore. Of course, the key is fast.
Clonezilla does a nice job with OS's other than *BSD (It uses dd (iirc))
and that takes forever (at least when cloning - have
Hi,
Thanks to all help I've received thus far, I seem to be getting
closer to my goal of backing up a small hard disk to a large one.
Remember that the "dump" command is causing core dumps on the source
volume.
The two paths I'm working within are:
1) Using g4u to clone disk (this has w
16 matches
Mail list logo
