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