From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:18:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:18:24 -0400 Received: from fe090.worldonline.dk ([212.54.64.152]:49930 "HELO fe090.worldonline.dk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:18:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3BB2065E.B0BAE05F@eisenstein.dk> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:46:22 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Klaus Dittrich CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, klaus@df1tlb.local.here Subject: Re: 2.4.10 and dd In-Reply-To: <200109272002.WAA02203@df1tlb.local.here> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Klaus Dittrich wrote: > I do my backup using dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=1024k. ehh, isn't that kind of dangerous??? What if files move around on disk while dd is running? imagine that dd is in the process of copying blocks belonging to a big file "foo", and now in the middle of this something causes "foo" (or just parts of "foo") to move to a different location - you now have a seriously screwed copy of "foo" on the new disk... I'd expect that all sorts of strange corruption of the copy could happen that way. I could be wrong, and maybe someone who knows more about how the filesystems work can tell if I am, but I know for sure that I would never dare to do backups that way. Best regards, Jesper Juhl juhl@eisenstein.dk