Linux

48035 readers

703 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

I installed a new, bigger SSD and cloned the old one, LUKS partition is still old size (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here's what I did: I bought a new 512 GB SSD to replace my old 256 GB SSD, which was getting full. I put the new SSD in an NVME to USB adapter and then booted to a Fedora 38 live USB and cloned the old drive into the new drive using dd if=/dev/nvme0n1 of=/dev/sda. Then I used gparted to expand the LUKS partition to cover the rest of the disk. I did not have to unlock the encryption for this. After that, I powered off, removed the 256 GB SSD and installed the 512 GB SSD, then booted normally. I did not erase either of the SSDs.

Now when I get into Fedora 38, GNOME Disks reports that /dev/mapper/luks-5e5f911c... is a 511 GB ext4 partition with 80 GB free, and /dev/nvme0n1p3 is a 511 GB LUKSv2 partition, but when I run df, this is what I see:

nate@redgate:~$ df / -h
Filesystem                    Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/luks-5e5f911c...  233G  159G   63G  72% /

What did I do wrong?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wasn't aware that rsync also copied system files. I'm curious to know why my method is unsafe. The only potential problem I see with what I did is mixing up if and of in dd.

[–] cybersandwich 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your method is safer imo as long as you get the dd command right. Because afterwards you'll have two bootable copies of your system. If you mess up resizing the filesystem on the new drive, just dd again from the old one.

Glad you figured it out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

rsync also gives you two bootable copies of your system. Even better, it gives you a checksum based copy of your files including permissions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Safe/unsafe might be the wrong word, but rsync is resumable and also copies permissions for example. dd is more like the brute force method of data transfer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Pause and resume are nice but dd also gives you the permissions. It copies everything, byte for byte, hence why it's a "low-level copy"