LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-27-2009, 08:44 AM   #541
terryxela
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Distribution: SuSE 11.3
Posts: 125

Rep: Reputation: 17
dd: cannot execute binary file


Problem: running dd produce the following error:

bash: /bin/dd: cannot execute binary file

Description: I want to create an usb stick that loads opensuse 11.2 RC1.
/dev/sde is the usb stick.
The iso file corresponds to opensuse live CD.
This is the command I use

#dd if=openSUSE-KDE4-LiveCD-Build0336-x86_64.iso of=/dev/sde bs=4M
bash: /bin/dd: cannot execute binary file

Any tips?

Thxs

-=terry=-
 
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 10-27-2009, 09:21 AM   #542
terryxela
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Distribution: SuSE 11.3
Posts: 125

Rep: Reputation: 17
Problem solved.
I was running dd under opensuse 11.1 (2.6.27.29-0.1-default
)
When I run the dd under opensuse 11.2 (Rc1) (2.6.31.3-1-desktop) the problem was solved. Most likely was due to the new kernel (?).

-=terry=-
 
Old 10-27-2009, 03:47 PM   #543
mark_alfred
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu Linux 16.04
Posts: 1,258

Rep: Reputation: 147Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwesomeMachine
Code:
dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/home/sam/backup_set_1.img bs=1M count=4600
Thanks. This is great. However, I found that for creating the dvd images, I had to limit the count to 4400 rather than the suggested 4600.

[later edit]
Alas, in trying to mount and read the created dvds, I found I was unable to. I following the directions for creating the images, and then writing them to dvd via wodim, exactly as written (though, as mentioned above, wodim would not write the images created with the count set at 4600, whereas it did when it was set to 4400). But, trying to mount them gave me the following:

First, the writing of the images (the 3rd, in the following example):
Code:
mark@debian:~/stuff/debs/backup/dvd$ wodim -dev=/dev/hdc --driveropts=burnfree /home/mark/backup_set_3.img
wodim: No write mode specified.
wodim: Asuming -tao mode.
wodim: Future versions of wodim may have different drive dependent defaults.
wodim: Operation not permitted. Warning: Cannot raise RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limits.Device type    : Removable CD-ROM
Version        : 0
Response Format: 2
Capabilities   : 
Vendor_info    : 'HL-DT-ST'
Identification : 'DVDRAM GSA-4163B'
Revision       : 'A103'
Device seems to be: Generic mmc2 DVD-R/DVD-RW.
Using generic SCSI-3/mmc DVD-R(W) driver (mmc_mdvd).
Driver flags   : SWABAUDIO BURNFREE 
Supported modes: PACKET SAO
Speed set to 5540 KB/s
Starting to write CD/DVD at speed   4.0 in real unknown mode for single session.
Last chance to quit, starting real write in    0 seconds. Operation starts.
Track 01: Total bytes read/written: 4613734400/4613734400 (2252800 sectors).
So, it wrote to the disc, and seemed successful. Yet, in trying to mount it and read it, I get the following:
Code:
debian:/home/mark# mount cdrom
mount: block device /dev/hdc is write-protected, mounting read-only
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hdc,
       missing codepage or helper program, or other error
       In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
       dmesg | tail  or so
I took its advice:
Code:
debian:/home/mark# dmesg | tail
[14885.392288] end_request: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0
[14885.416282] end_request: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0
[14921.757385] UDF-fs: No VRS found
[14921.906945] ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
[15007.839973] UDF-fs: No VRS found
[15008.201252] ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
[15085.573359] UDF-fs: No VRS found
[15085.928090] ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
[15624.036563] UDF-fs: No VRS found
[15624.391161] ISOFS: Unable to identify CD-ROM format.
Is this normal? Am I not supposed to be able to mount it?

Last edited by mark_alfred; 10-27-2009 at 04:23 PM. Reason: to clarify what I was referring to
 
Old 10-28-2009, 04:12 PM   #544
SirCharlesLDS
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Attempting backup with dd command. Expected to get truncated output, but seems to be not truncating. Issued dd command with and without the notrunc parameter. In both cases output was huge - lots bigger than amount of files on root partition. Maybe that is the default on SLES10. man pages show that notrunc is an option, though don't see a trunc option.
 
Old 10-29-2009, 01:28 PM   #545
AwesomeMachine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: USA and Italy
Distribution: Debian testing/sid; OpenSuSE; Fedora
Posts: 1,828

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 256Reputation: 256Reputation: 256
Mark,

The individual DVDs in a backup set are not file systems. They are parts of file systems. They cannot be mounted and read like a file system. Thanks for the tip about count=. Exactly how much will fit on one DVD depends on exactly which type of recordable DVD is being used.
 
Old 10-29-2009, 01:31 PM   #546
AwesomeMachine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: USA and Italy
Distribution: Debian testing/sid; OpenSuSE; Fedora
Posts: 1,828

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 256Reputation: 256Reputation: 256
Post Notrunc

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirCharlesLDS View Post
Attempting backup with dd command. Expected to get truncated output, but seems to be not truncating. Issued dd command with and without the notrunc parameter. In both cases output was huge - lots bigger than amount of files on root partition. Maybe that is the default on SLES10. man pages show that notrunc is an option, though don't see a trunc option.
Dd will duplicate to the end of the drive. The notrunc conversion option has nothing to do with files on the drive. If you wish to copy only what is written on the drive, use rsync as described in the OP.
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:34 PM   #547
mejohnsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
[QUOTE=AwesomeMachine;1848006]This document is made to be easily skimmed. The latest addition was on 5-21-2009, 'DVD backup of hard drive partition'. This is comprehensive documentation for one of the most useful Linux/UNIX Windows commands-dd. It is a bit-stream duplicator for duplicating data. If you have a question, post it.

First Time visitors please leave a reply.

This entire thread is very misguided. What good could it possibly do, for example, to talk about copying a hard disk to three DVDs without even mentioning how big the hard disk is? What good could it do, if the user's hard drive shows up on a different device, instead of on hda3??

Why, the post does not even explain how it arrived at the 6400M size for each DVD. When writing for beginners, you simply cannot assume such things.

Nor is dd at all comparable to Norton Ghost, which does a lot more. Ghost will do differential backups, dd will not. For that matter, will Ghost do character table based translations the way dd does? Not that I have heard of. Comparing the two is misleading at best.

Finally, there is a reason people often use rsync or cpio for backups instead of dd. For some backup situtations, they really are better.
 
Old 11-03-2009, 09:04 PM   #548
exvor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS, Debian,Ubuntu
Posts: 1,537

Rep: Reputation: 87
mejohnsn tho i agree that saying that dd is comparable to Norton ghost is a bit misleading it is not all in it self incorrect. dd is a very powerful tool that "can" be used to create backups but it is also very ancient. dd has been around longer then Linux and this is evident by its rather odd looking format of commands dd of=/dev/sda for example. You can pair up dd with some other programs and create a package or live distro that will rival that of anything Norton ghost could do. I have live distro on a thumb drive that I use to create images of my windows boxes that can even create a iso image that can be burned onto a disk and used as a standalone recovery method. It uses dd but it also uses a wide range of other tools.

I would suggest any newer Linux users not experience with playing with DD to leave it alone and use something rather newer to make backups but if your interested in using it, it can be a valuable tool that is almost always available on any Linux installation.

Last edited by exvor; 11-04-2009 at 09:30 PM. Reason: because DD is not dd this may be confusing to some....
 
Old 11-04-2009, 05:45 PM   #549
mejohnsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by exvor View Post
mejohnsn tho i agree that saying that dd is comparable to Norton ghost is a bit misleading it is not all in it self incorrect. DD is a very powerful tool that "can" be used to create backups but it is also very ancient. DD has been around longer then Linux and this is evident by its rather odd looking format of commands dd of=/dev/sda for example. You can pair up dd with some other programs and create a package or live distro that will rival that of anything Norton ghost could do. I have live distro on a thumb drive that I use to create images of my windows boxes that can even create a iso image that can be burned onto a disk and used as a standalone recovery method. It uses dd but it also uses a wide range of other tools.

I would suggest any newer Linux users not experience with playing with DD to leave it alone and use something rather newer to make backups but if your interested in using it, it can be a valuable tool that is almost always available on any Linux installation.
You say it is "not all in it self[sic] incorrect", but then immediately follow this assertion with a list of reasons why it IS in fact quite incorrect.

I'll try to keep this short by mentioning one crucial aspect that recurs in your list: Norton Ghost is a single application, but to get the equivalent functionality out of 'dd', you need to learn how to use other tools, such as 'tar' and combine them with 'dd'.

That alone is enough to say that yes, it is in fact quite incorrect, because the two tools, 'dd' and "Norton Ghost" are essentially different.

Finally, the command is 'dd', NOT 'DD'. Unix command line shells are case sensitive, there is no such command as 'DD'. Referring to 'dd' as 'DD' is NOT helping anyone.
 
Old 11-04-2009, 09:39 PM   #550
exvor
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS, Debian,Ubuntu
Posts: 1,537

Rep: Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mejohnsn View Post
You say it is "not all in it self[sic] incorrect", but then immediately follow this assertion with a list of reasons why it IS in fact quite incorrect.

I'll try to keep this short by mentioning one crucial aspect that recurs in your list: Norton Ghost is a single application, but to get the equivalent functionality out of 'dd', you need to learn how to use other tools, such as 'tar' and combine them with 'dd'.

That alone is enough to say that yes, it is in fact quite incorrect, because the two tools, 'dd' and "Norton Ghost" are essentially different.

Finally, the command is 'dd', NOT 'DD'. Unix command line shells are case sensitive, there is no such command as 'DD'. Referring to 'dd' as 'DD' is NOT helping anyone.

Norton ghost was created to make images of peoples hard disks. dd was created to make backup tape images of peoples hard disks in this aspect they are similar. However since dd was created probably before I was born it does not have the same functionalism as Norton ghost and as such you need additional software to get the same functionality as Norton ghost. I could write a compare and contrast essay but that would be unnecessary.

One is free and included in Linux
the other is not.
If people want a backup solution this is just one of the many available options. I am also not the OP and don't feel any sort of need to defend his words and I would agree that they need some clarification.
 
Old 11-07-2009, 12:45 PM   #551
AwesomeMachine
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: USA and Italy
Distribution: Debian testing/sid; OpenSuSE; Fedora
Posts: 1,828

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 256Reputation: 256Reputation: 256
Ghost also has huge license fees that DD lacks. In a corporate environment, dd can save tens of thousands of dollars per year over Ghost.
 
Old 11-07-2009, 04:49 PM   #552
Predatorian
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: currently, where ever the army takes me
Distribution: Debian Lenny/Ubuntu or Arch Linux
Posts: 145

Rep: Reputation: 27
ill aslo agree with AwesomeMachine, dd can save a lot of money, and it also teaches people about other options out there. the IT staff i was part of, before i got there, they were all about getting norton ghost, but they couldnt get the funding to purchase the enterprise edition. so i showed them the power of dd and tar, now they are using linux themselves just for everyday use. just gotta show people that linux isnt a archaic language for nerds, its a lot of point and click for those transitioning, and CLI power for those thirsting to harness its true power.
 
Old 11-07-2009, 11:55 PM   #553
hlb244
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
learn the dd command

a lot to absorb but very well done thank you very much
 
Old 11-08-2009, 06:02 AM   #554
archtoad6
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX (usa)
Distribution: MEPIS, Debian, Knoppix,
Posts: 4,727
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwesomeMachine View Post
Ghost also has huge license fees that DD lacks. In a corporate environment, dd can save tens of thousands of dollars per year over Ghost.
Price is not the right comparison between dd & Ghost -- Compare it to PING (Partimage Is Not Ghost) or Clonezilla. If you want to be really comprehensive, look at WikipediaŽ's List of disk cloning software & Comparison of disk cloning software.

I don't like Symantec & what they seem to do to good software after they buy it. I also have no use for bought s/w, not for myself. But, it a production environment, licensing isn't the only cost a good IT mgr. needs to consider; what about technician hours saved by ease of use? Ghost may lose there too, but I wouldn't bet on it w/o doing some comparisons.
 
Old 11-10-2009, 07:32 PM   #555
mejohnsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by archtoad6 View Post
Price is not the right comparison between dd & Ghost
Absolutely true. Thank you for pointing this out. Comparing based on price alone is all too easy a trap to fall into. Especially for those of us who, being involved in Linux or Open Source, already have a prejudice in favor of free software. This prejudice often fools us into ignoring some very good software.

Quote:
-- Compare it to PING (Partimage Is Not Ghost) or Clonezilla. If you want to be really comprehensive, look at WikipediaŽ's List of disk cloning software & Comparison of disk cloning software.
This is a good site, but it is still no substitute for a thorough, impartial review done by an author who really knows backup/cloning software.

Unfortunately, these are really hard to find. The article at http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.c...337376,00.html looks pretty good, though the ad you have to wait for is evil

Last edited by mejohnsn; 11-10-2009 at 07:33 PM. Reason: broken tag
 
  


Reply

Tags
backup, best, clonezilla, cloning, command, data, dd, disk, drive, duplicate, erase, explanation, formatting, ghost, hard, image, iso, memory, ping, popular, recover, recovery, rescue, search, security, stick, upgrade, usb, wipe


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Learn The DD command AwesomeMachine Linux - Newbie 17 08-17-2006 05:22 AM
The best way to learn? iz3r Programming 7 02-07-2005 12:00 AM
Best way to learn Linux from the command line patpawlowski Linux - General 2 03-01-2004 04:37 PM
I want to learn C. KptnKrill Programming 14 12-18-2003 02:03 PM
Best way to learn.... InEeDhElPlInUx Linux - Newbie 5 10-11-2003 02:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration