On Wednesday 05 April 2006 15:15, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a.
> >
> >Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the
> >a partition starts at the start of t
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a.
>
>Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the
>a partition starts at the start of the slice to be confusing) with the
>actual disklabel table in se
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:40, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-Apr-04 11:12:03 +0100, Khaled Hussain wrote:
> >Why does everyone talk about dump+restore as a pair? I thought it was
> >possible just to dump a filesystem to a different hard disk i.e.
> >dump -0a -f /dev/ad2 /
>
> It is. But /de
Khaled Hussain wrote:
Thanks for the clarification...at the moment I am trying to set a boot
manager on my disk but am unsure which slice to set as the default boot
selection when using the boot0cfg command.
boot0cfg -Bv -s? ad2
disklabel -r ad0 (on a different bsd system) gives:
8 partitions:
AIL PROTECTED]
: > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of M. Warner Losh
: > Sent: 29 March 2006 05:04
: > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
: > Subject: Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
: >
: >
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Patrick Tracan
-
19329*)
Kind Regards
Khaled
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Jeremy
> Sent: 04 April 2006 11:41
> To: Khaled Hussain
> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers
> Subject: Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
>
>
> On Tue, 2006
On Tue, 2006-Apr-04 11:12:03 +0100, Khaled Hussain wrote:
>Why does everyone talk about dump+restore as a pair? I thought it was
>possible just to dump a filesystem to a different hard disk i.e.
>dump -0a -f /dev/ad2 /
It is. But /dev/ad2 will have a dumpfile on it, not a filesystem.
The only thi
nal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of M. Warner Losh
> Sent: 29 March 2006 05:04
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
>
>
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
One further thing you might want to consider is a project out of the
University of Utah called Emulab. I've been using the free client on
there to dump and restore disks for a couple of years now. The
advantage over dump/restore and especially dd is that it's _fast_. On
my systems here I can get
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Patrick Tracanelli wrote this message on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:14 -0300:
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
It also gives you a defrag
Patrick Tracanelli wrote this message on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:14 -0300:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> >>dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
> >
> >
> >Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
> >
> >It also gives you a defrag as wel
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:14:19AM -0300, Patrick Tracanelli wrote:
> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> >>dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
> >
> >Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
> >
> >It also gives you a defrag as well as allowi
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
It also gives you a defrag as well as allowing you to change FS options.
Yes, pretty much faster for non-full disks, even compare
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 14:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> dump + restore is slow but reliabe.
Faster than dd for disks that aren't full :)
It also gives you a defrag as well as allowing you to change FS options.
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patrick Tracanelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: >> I heard its faster if you use two dd's; i.e:
: >>
: >># dd if=/dev/ad0 bs=64k | dd of=/dev/ad1 bs=64k
: >>
: >> allowing read and write to proceed in parallel.
: >
: >
: > that's what ddd and 't
I heard its faster if you use two dd's; i.e:
# dd if=/dev/ad0 bs=64k | dd of=/dev/ad1 bs=64k
allowing read and write to proceed in parallel.
that's what ddd and 'team' are for.
I don't know if ddd is in the ports as it may clash inname with teh
debugger ddd
They internally fork and use
Joe Koberg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process to be. 128m or
more i
> On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
> > systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
> > memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process to be. 128m or
> > more is perfectly re
On Saturday 25 March 2006 04:42, Mike Meyer wrote:
> One thing: 1m is a bit small for modern systems. Or for not-so-modern
> systems. Since nothing else is running, you might as well use all the
> memory you've got, or as big as you can get a process to be. 128m or
> more is perfectly reasonable.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasil Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 06:19:13PM +0100, Dirk GOUDERS wrote:
> Without reading it, I would first try this, it's quite straightforward
>
> * boot into single user mode (enter "boot -s" at loader prompt)
> * make sure filesystems are
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 06:19:13PM +0100, Dirk GOUDERS wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > This is my first day on the list so please pardon me if I am on the wrong
> > list and any mistakes I make.
> >
> > I would like to create a bootable clone of a HDD running BSD version 4.8. I
> > have experience of cloning
Hi,
> This is my first day on the list so please pardon me if I am on the wrong
> list and any mistakes I make.
>
> I would like to create a bootable clone of a HDD running BSD version 4.8. I
> have experience of cloning linux machines successfully but understand that
> freebsd is a little differ
Hi All,
This is my first day on the list so please pardon me if I am on the wrong
list and any mistakes I make.
I would like to create a bootable clone of a HDD running BSD version 4.8. I
have experience of cloning linux machines successfully but understand that
freebsd is a little different.
Pl
24 matches
Mail list logo
