Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!decuac!hussar.dco.dec.com!mjr
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: Using "dd" copy copy disk partitions
Message-ID: <1991May19.000243.734@decuac.dec.com>
Date: 19 May 91 00:02:43 GMT
References: <3168@shodha.enet.dec.com> <1991May18.170358.24367@decuac.dec.com> <21710@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Washington Ultrix Resource Center
Lines: 17

grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
>I write:
>> 
>> 	Using dd to copy filesystems can also be a whole lot slower than
>> using dump | restore
>
>Wrongo!  On any decent sized filesystemm, restore is *much* slower than
>dump.  You'd need a better than 2-1 ratio to make your point.

	Hmmmm... Teach me to post without benchmarking. I've been in
the habit of doing the dump | restore thing for years because I have a
few cases where it was a HELL of a lot faster stuck in my mind. Not sure
why, though, and I guess I'd assumed it was that I wasn't pumping unused
blocks over the network. It might have been that the disks were not very
full at all.

mjr.