[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Transplanting old System to New Drive



On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Scott Ferguson
<prettyfly.productions@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/11 12:15, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

>> and you need to use the "-x" setting to avoid descending to other
>> partitions.
>
> What do you mean??
>
> That sounds very bad - how come I've never noticed this happening?

You probably don't have funky NFS mounts, add-on drives mounted, nor
do you have funky /dev/ setups that you *don't* want to replicate.
You're also not using anything with mount points inside of chroot
cages.

>> And if you have to start over, consider using the "--delete" commands
>> to flush partially completed files that are partially copied as
>> ".filename.foo" files.
>
> Why would "you have to start over"??

Because you tweaked the original disk, becuase the lengthy process was
interrupted by a power shortage, or for who knows what other reasons.

> There's no reason to run rsync more than once unless the file system
> being copied changes - *which would not happen in this instance*.

Or if the original rsync is interrupted mid-stream
>
>> And there's the "--acis" command as well, for replicating ACL
>> settings. Really, it's worth reviewing ing the manual page for the
>> "rsync" command
>
> Indeed. All useful information Nico, thanks.
> Under the circumstances it "might" be better to use rsync tailored for
> Martin's specific needs, rather than a
> "cover-every-conceivable-scenario" approach. As Martin isn't going to
> use a Live CD approach - it's a moot point. (though Knoppix Adriane will
> probably do the job, and includes parted)
>
>> before just blindly using this kind of "just run
>> these commands" procedure.
>
> When conventions like "/dev/destination_drive" are being employed it
> usually indicates an overview. A disclaimer and better headings would
> have reduced the misunderstandings - I'll avoid those errors in future.
> I didn't intend it to be read as "just run these commands". I'm sorry
> you interpreted it that way, my apologies for confusing you.

Well, *I* knew better. Our original poster might not know better. This
is why I like to mention the details to the newbies, so they don't
propagate the simplified approach to their peers and I have to clean
up and re-educate later....


Reply to: