Dave Dribin
Michael Tsai
@ddribin .dmgs are checksummed, so you can actually check to make sure there’s no bit rot.
Archiving old systems: do I keep a clone of the drive or make a .dmg? .dmgs would be smaller, but potentially more prone to bit rot?
-
-
-
- View other replies
-
@cbowns@mjtsai Looks like .rar has some recovery info. Not much else does, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_archive_formats … -
-
-
-
@ddribin How would a DMG be more prone to bit rot than an actual drive? -
@optshiftk Cloning an old drive (say 40GB) to a folder on my now larger drive. A dmg would of that would be ~30GB and easier to move around - View other replies
-
@ddribin If anything I’d consider the DMG safer than cloning to a folder. Basically DMG über alles.
-
-
-
@ddribin dmgs can be verified. In any case, redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. ;-) Did I mention redundancy? -
@josevazquez You should say it again so that we are sure what you position is.
-
-
@ddribin I keep a .dmg that can be used with Restore. -
@ddribin I do compressed dmgs, multiple copies -
@ddribin my vote goes to full drive clone. But DMG is nice, since it can be read only. No one can overwrite your stuff.
““cbowns””
Kyle S.
Jose Vazquez
Jim Correia
Mike Hay
rentzsch
Matt Troutman
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.