Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
Hm, using a smaller block size does make sense, but I imagine that cloning an entire drive with 512 byte blocks is gonna take 10 million years. Especially this one, since the main reason I'm suspecting that it has started failing is because it's slowed down to the point where it drags down the entire system when even the smallest of loads hit it...
That's a bad sign. First off stop using it so that you don't make it worse. Next take a backup. I think dd automatically skips over bad blocks but I don't remember. Also, I would not go straight to another drive but instead go to a file.
I don't mean to freak you out but there is a chance you are going to lose data.
I already have all data I care about backed up, so even if I lose some, it's not a big deal
If you suspect a failing drive, you may want to consider using ddrescue as opposed to
dd. The tool is specifically designed to help with failing disks.