ddrescue: reread only good sectors?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive, I decided to dry-run ddrescue
(throwing rescued output to /dev/null
) just to see how much data is unreadable:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -r 3 -f /dev/sda1 /dev/null sda1.log
In the end it took 3 days to finish. Now I'm ready to make a real image, but I don't want to wait another 3 days until it finishes. But, luckily because I have a logfile, is it possible to force ddrescue
to rescue only the good sectors and do not touch bad ones?
Having read some documentation, I've came up with the following idea:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 --fill=+ /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img sda1.log
Will this work? Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?
data-recovery ddrescue
add a comment |
Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive, I decided to dry-run ddrescue
(throwing rescued output to /dev/null
) just to see how much data is unreadable:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -r 3 -f /dev/sda1 /dev/null sda1.log
In the end it took 3 days to finish. Now I'm ready to make a real image, but I don't want to wait another 3 days until it finishes. But, luckily because I have a logfile, is it possible to force ddrescue
to rescue only the good sectors and do not touch bad ones?
Having read some documentation, I've came up with the following idea:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 --fill=+ /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img sda1.log
Will this work? Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?
data-recovery ddrescue
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,-r 3
.-n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.
– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
So that's why I came up with the idea of using--fill=+
option ("fill mode")
– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17
add a comment |
Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive, I decided to dry-run ddrescue
(throwing rescued output to /dev/null
) just to see how much data is unreadable:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -r 3 -f /dev/sda1 /dev/null sda1.log
In the end it took 3 days to finish. Now I'm ready to make a real image, but I don't want to wait another 3 days until it finishes. But, luckily because I have a logfile, is it possible to force ddrescue
to rescue only the good sectors and do not touch bad ones?
Having read some documentation, I've came up with the following idea:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 --fill=+ /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img sda1.log
Will this work? Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?
data-recovery ddrescue
Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive, I decided to dry-run ddrescue
(throwing rescued output to /dev/null
) just to see how much data is unreadable:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -r 3 -f /dev/sda1 /dev/null sda1.log
In the end it took 3 days to finish. Now I'm ready to make a real image, but I don't want to wait another 3 days until it finishes. But, luckily because I have a logfile, is it possible to force ddrescue
to rescue only the good sectors and do not touch bad ones?
Having read some documentation, I've came up with the following idea:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 --fill=+ /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img sda1.log
Will this work? Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?
data-recovery ddrescue
data-recovery ddrescue
edited Jan 11 '13 at 13:05
evaldaz
asked Jan 10 '13 at 11:55
evaldazevaldaz
4617
4617
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,-r 3
.-n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.
– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
So that's why I came up with the idea of using--fill=+
option ("fill mode")
– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17
add a comment |
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,-r 3
.-n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.
– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
So that's why I came up with the idea of using--fill=+
option ("fill mode")
– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,
-r 3
. -n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,
-r 3
. -n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
So that's why I came up with the idea of using
--fill=+
option ("fill mode")– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17
So that's why I came up with the idea of using
--fill=+
option ("fill mode")– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Thoroughly reread ddrescue
manual and found out the following option:
-m file
--domain-logfile=file
Restrict the rescue domain to the blocks marked as finished in the logfile file. This is useful if the destination drive fails during the rescue.
So the invocation of ddrescue
would look something like this:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -m sda1.log /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img logfile2.log
add a comment |
Quick edit 2018:
I use ddrescue
sometimes, from some years ago, for rescuing hard-drive.
Something quicker than dd
on hdd with really broken surfaces.
But dd
is really safe and my first post stay true.
Original post
This is a very bad idea!
I'm talking about Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive...
As when a disk drive come to be corrupted, corruption are generally growing each time you try to access your drive.
So the good way to rescue a broken drive is to make an image by copying whole disk from begin to end in one uninterrupted operation!. After that: unplug the disk drive and store them quietly. As: less you touch the broken drive, more chance you have to restore something.
As each time mechanical access to broken material could make some more damages, the log you're become from your last operation is not a reference for knowing wich block are damaged now.
I personally, don't use ddrescue
. I use dd
from a while and this tool make all I need:
dd bs=512 if=/dev/sdX of=/backuprepo/sdXBroken.img conv=noerror,sync
And, I let it work patiently.
Usingdd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.
– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, usingconv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specifyibs
andobs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately
– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
add a comment |
Knowing what ddrecue does, you should not use it to write to /dev/null while recovering data from broken disk, but to get "at least something" using writes into real image file.
Writing to /dev/null has sence e.g. if you want to know for brand-new disk if to return it to the store.
In this case, i would not use log file from "/dev/null attempt", but empty/new one, and then trying eventually more times couple of passes, depending how it does...
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60876%2fddrescue-reread-only-good-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thoroughly reread ddrescue
manual and found out the following option:
-m file
--domain-logfile=file
Restrict the rescue domain to the blocks marked as finished in the logfile file. This is useful if the destination drive fails during the rescue.
So the invocation of ddrescue
would look something like this:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -m sda1.log /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img logfile2.log
add a comment |
Thoroughly reread ddrescue
manual and found out the following option:
-m file
--domain-logfile=file
Restrict the rescue domain to the blocks marked as finished in the logfile file. This is useful if the destination drive fails during the rescue.
So the invocation of ddrescue
would look something like this:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -m sda1.log /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img logfile2.log
add a comment |
Thoroughly reread ddrescue
manual and found out the following option:
-m file
--domain-logfile=file
Restrict the rescue domain to the blocks marked as finished in the logfile file. This is useful if the destination drive fails during the rescue.
So the invocation of ddrescue
would look something like this:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -m sda1.log /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img logfile2.log
Thoroughly reread ddrescue
manual and found out the following option:
-m file
--domain-logfile=file
Restrict the rescue domain to the blocks marked as finished in the logfile file. This is useful if the destination drive fails during the rescue.
So the invocation of ddrescue
would look something like this:
# ddrescue -d -b 4096 -m sda1.log /dev/sda1 /mnt/sda1.img logfile2.log
edited Jan 11 '13 at 22:24
community wiki
3 revs
evaldaz
add a comment |
add a comment |
Quick edit 2018:
I use ddrescue
sometimes, from some years ago, for rescuing hard-drive.
Something quicker than dd
on hdd with really broken surfaces.
But dd
is really safe and my first post stay true.
Original post
This is a very bad idea!
I'm talking about Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive...
As when a disk drive come to be corrupted, corruption are generally growing each time you try to access your drive.
So the good way to rescue a broken drive is to make an image by copying whole disk from begin to end in one uninterrupted operation!. After that: unplug the disk drive and store them quietly. As: less you touch the broken drive, more chance you have to restore something.
As each time mechanical access to broken material could make some more damages, the log you're become from your last operation is not a reference for knowing wich block are damaged now.
I personally, don't use ddrescue
. I use dd
from a while and this tool make all I need:
dd bs=512 if=/dev/sdX of=/backuprepo/sdXBroken.img conv=noerror,sync
And, I let it work patiently.
Usingdd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.
– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, usingconv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specifyibs
andobs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately
– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
add a comment |
Quick edit 2018:
I use ddrescue
sometimes, from some years ago, for rescuing hard-drive.
Something quicker than dd
on hdd with really broken surfaces.
But dd
is really safe and my first post stay true.
Original post
This is a very bad idea!
I'm talking about Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive...
As when a disk drive come to be corrupted, corruption are generally growing each time you try to access your drive.
So the good way to rescue a broken drive is to make an image by copying whole disk from begin to end in one uninterrupted operation!. After that: unplug the disk drive and store them quietly. As: less you touch the broken drive, more chance you have to restore something.
As each time mechanical access to broken material could make some more damages, the log you're become from your last operation is not a reference for knowing wich block are damaged now.
I personally, don't use ddrescue
. I use dd
from a while and this tool make all I need:
dd bs=512 if=/dev/sdX of=/backuprepo/sdXBroken.img conv=noerror,sync
And, I let it work patiently.
Usingdd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.
– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, usingconv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specifyibs
andobs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately
– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
add a comment |
Quick edit 2018:
I use ddrescue
sometimes, from some years ago, for rescuing hard-drive.
Something quicker than dd
on hdd with really broken surfaces.
But dd
is really safe and my first post stay true.
Original post
This is a very bad idea!
I'm talking about Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive...
As when a disk drive come to be corrupted, corruption are generally growing each time you try to access your drive.
So the good way to rescue a broken drive is to make an image by copying whole disk from begin to end in one uninterrupted operation!. After that: unplug the disk drive and store them quietly. As: less you touch the broken drive, more chance you have to restore something.
As each time mechanical access to broken material could make some more damages, the log you're become from your last operation is not a reference for knowing wich block are damaged now.
I personally, don't use ddrescue
. I use dd
from a while and this tool make all I need:
dd bs=512 if=/dev/sdX of=/backuprepo/sdXBroken.img conv=noerror,sync
And, I let it work patiently.
Quick edit 2018:
I use ddrescue
sometimes, from some years ago, for rescuing hard-drive.
Something quicker than dd
on hdd with really broken surfaces.
But dd
is really safe and my first post stay true.
Original post
This is a very bad idea!
I'm talking about Before imaging the corrupted filesystem to a file on another hard drive...
As when a disk drive come to be corrupted, corruption are generally growing each time you try to access your drive.
So the good way to rescue a broken drive is to make an image by copying whole disk from begin to end in one uninterrupted operation!. After that: unplug the disk drive and store them quietly. As: less you touch the broken drive, more chance you have to restore something.
As each time mechanical access to broken material could make some more damages, the log you're become from your last operation is not a reference for knowing wich block are damaged now.
I personally, don't use ddrescue
. I use dd
from a while and this tool make all I need:
dd bs=512 if=/dev/sdX of=/backuprepo/sdXBroken.img conv=noerror,sync
And, I let it work patiently.
edited Jan 23 at 15:59
answered Jan 11 '13 at 13:54
F. HauriF. Hauri
2,6871327
2,6871327
Usingdd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.
– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, usingconv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specifyibs
andobs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately
– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
add a comment |
Usingdd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.
– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, usingconv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specifyibs
andobs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately
– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
Using
dd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
Using
dd
without a block size (bs
) set makes FSM sad.– laebshade
Jan 11 '13 at 22:55
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
"corrupted filesystem" - if he is lucky, he only has a software issue, not a hardware issue :)
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:53
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
stick to ddrescue - dd noerror sync corrupts data superuser.com/a/1075837/195171
– frostschutz
Jan 23 at 13:49
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, using
conv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specify ibs
and obs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
@frostschutz, The link you point to is a very special case, using virtual block devices and non-standard device block size. In all normal cases, trying to backup physical drive, using
conv=noerror,sync
is correct. For special case, you may have to explicitely specify ibs
and obs
. But that's no matter with the main subject of my answer: When things goes wrong don't try else than backup immediately– F. Hauri
Jan 23 at 16:00
add a comment |
Knowing what ddrecue does, you should not use it to write to /dev/null while recovering data from broken disk, but to get "at least something" using writes into real image file.
Writing to /dev/null has sence e.g. if you want to know for brand-new disk if to return it to the store.
In this case, i would not use log file from "/dev/null attempt", but empty/new one, and then trying eventually more times couple of passes, depending how it does...
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
add a comment |
Knowing what ddrecue does, you should not use it to write to /dev/null while recovering data from broken disk, but to get "at least something" using writes into real image file.
Writing to /dev/null has sence e.g. if you want to know for brand-new disk if to return it to the store.
In this case, i would not use log file from "/dev/null attempt", but empty/new one, and then trying eventually more times couple of passes, depending how it does...
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
add a comment |
Knowing what ddrecue does, you should not use it to write to /dev/null while recovering data from broken disk, but to get "at least something" using writes into real image file.
Writing to /dev/null has sence e.g. if you want to know for brand-new disk if to return it to the store.
In this case, i would not use log file from "/dev/null attempt", but empty/new one, and then trying eventually more times couple of passes, depending how it does...
Knowing what ddrecue does, you should not use it to write to /dev/null while recovering data from broken disk, but to get "at least something" using writes into real image file.
Writing to /dev/null has sence e.g. if you want to know for brand-new disk if to return it to the store.
In this case, i would not use log file from "/dev/null attempt", but empty/new one, and then trying eventually more times couple of passes, depending how it does...
answered May 20 '16 at 15:48
StanleyStanley
111
111
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
add a comment |
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
pretty sure this doesn't address the question of "Is there another (preferred) way of rereading only good sectors?"
– Jeff Schaller
May 20 '16 at 16:15
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
@JeffSchaller: which means this should be a comment to the question -> not possible with the low points
– PythoNic
Nov 17 '16 at 16:54
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
To which the easy answer is: get more points! (By providing answers that people find useful and up-vote)
– Jeff Schaller
Nov 17 '16 at 16:55
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60876%2fddrescue-reread-only-good-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I thought it didn't even try to reread at all by default... In fact, you told it to retry 3 times,
-r 3
.-n
may also save time, although I guess it won't try to get as much data as possible.– njsg
Jan 10 '13 at 12:09
So that's why I came up with the idea of using
--fill=+
option ("fill mode")– evaldaz
Jan 10 '13 at 12:17