When I last partitioned a drive (this summer) there was an option to make it possible to later on resize and/or add or remove partitions with the data still intact. Of course you need to have empty space though. To my understanding, strictly speaking you only have to have an empty partition to clone onto but as I have never really done cloning myself, I am unsure here.

This sort of thing is pretty easy on Linux & BSD, at least with the filesystems I'm familiar with. You can just copy the filesystem image as raw blocks anywhere you like, and then fix your partition table so the system knows where to find the new copy.

But trying to clone partitions as-is seems pointless if you have the option of just copying all the files (and possibly switching over to a more performant and/or less fragmented partition while at it). That is also easy to do.

I agree with clarry, and in this case I'd say cloning is not the best option. Cloning has always been more pain in the ass when there's such a difference in partition/disk sizes every time I upgrade or just taking a backup. I used Norton Ghost before I moved to Linux.

Just recently I had a 1.5GB Green disk containing all my (installed) games that was getting tired and I also needed to take a backup. I replaced it with a 3TB disk with these steps:

1. Plug in the new disk, either via sata-2-usb cable or directly on a SATA port.

2. Boot up Linux (either dualbooting or live disk).

3. Ready/format the new disk (in these days Linux auto-mounts any new disks/partitions it detects. Might need to unplug/plug it in again if it's external)

4. Use df -h to find the disk and where it's mounted. Ex: /dev/sdb1 mounted on /media/newdisk

5. Lastly, use rsync, this planets best and most powerfull utility for copying/syncing/backuping locally and remotely.

Basic command: In this example: rsync -av /dev/sdb1/ /media/newdisk/

As long as we’re not talking about a boot/sys disk/partition and only data as-is, you really don't need to do anything else.

PS: See... no trolls here. That means you probably did something right :P

PS2: When it comes to hard cloning I'd say dd is the best byte-2-byte utility (but it's also slower than rsync). Norton Ghost was such a lackluster when it came to flexibility, it almost made me cried when I discovered Linux and dd. :D

No, you're breathtaking!

Nope, been using SSD's for storage for years already, but i did Google it, here is your answer.

www.pcworld.com/article/2925173/debunked-your-ssd-wont-lose-data-if-left-unplugged-after-all.html



USB sticks would have failed at the first hurdle had that information been true and SSD's wouldn't be a thing.

I use SSD's as a USB pen drives and never lost a file, even when in storage for months. They seem more rugged to data loss than typical USB drives, wich after hard work, many times corrupt data.

I use clonezilla to clone disks and partitions, Take a look.

Interesting info...thanks.

Sounds nice, but(and please don't take this the wrong way) changing OSs seems a bit extreme for such a simple thing I want to accomplish maybe in the future. :|

Thanks for the info...what about over YEARS, though?

I just told you.

Thanks, then.....I was just also hoping for more than one study/link so I could compare them side by side, but thanks nonetheless.

https://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment/

https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/

Besides my own usage, since i used USB sticks & drives as OS installers and storage, i may never use them for 6 months to years at a time, and yes, that data is still there.



Article wise, there is not much on it, and the majority of it is guess work, but there is no real hard evidence that a current decent SSD will lose your data after being powered off for less than a year.

Thanks again.....:)

No problem, just stop stealing my downvotes.

We shall split the difference.....yay verily.