Fastest way to migrate to a bigger SSD (18.04)
3
I've seen a few postings about migration with older Ubuntu versions.
What's the fastest way to migrate 120GB (80GB full) to a 1TB SSD under Ubuntu 18.04?
- live duplicate or via image possible
- how to extend the new volume on the new SSD?
Because I've only a limited time window once I've started I'd be happy for suggestions for the fastest way to get new system up and running again.
partitioning ssd dd
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
add a comment |
3
I've seen a few postings about migration with older Ubuntu versions.
What's the fastest way to migrate 120GB (80GB full) to a 1TB SSD under Ubuntu 18.04?
- live duplicate or via image possible
- how to extend the new volume on the new SSD?
Because I've only a limited time window once I've started I'd be happy for suggestions for the fastest way to get new system up and running again.
partitioning ssd dd
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
1
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59
add a comment |
3
3
3
I've seen a few postings about migration with older Ubuntu versions.
What's the fastest way to migrate 120GB (80GB full) to a 1TB SSD under Ubuntu 18.04?
- live duplicate or via image possible
- how to extend the new volume on the new SSD?
Because I've only a limited time window once I've started I'd be happy for suggestions for the fastest way to get new system up and running again.
partitioning ssd dd
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
I've seen a few postings about migration with older Ubuntu versions.
What's the fastest way to migrate 120GB (80GB full) to a 1TB SSD under Ubuntu 18.04?
- live duplicate or via image possible
- how to extend the new volume on the new SSD?
Because I've only a limited time window once I've started I'd be happy for suggestions for the fastest way to get new system up and running again.
partitioning ssd dd
partitioning ssd dd
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
edited Dec 30 '18 at 10:59
SurvivalMachine
1,2913717
1,2913717
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
asked Dec 30 '18 at 9:40
ssssstutssssstut
4616
4616
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
1
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59
add a comment |
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
1
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
1
1
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2
What about using a Live System and
sudo dd if=/dev/sdx0 of=/dev/sdy0
and
sudo resize2fs /dev/sdy0
afterwards to resize the partition.
With sdx0 being your old partition and sdy0 being the new one.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
add a comment |
0
For a fast migration you have more than a couple of choice (and for fast not use dd, it copy bit per bit)
common used tools:
https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ (should free to personal use)
https://clonezilla.org/ (open source)
https://www.symantec.com/products/ghost-solutions-suite (commercial)
You can also decide to create a tar of your OS and restore it (more manual work to do but still fast then dd)
- https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem/TAR
Personally I suggest you to use clonezilla, have a large community and a good Knowledge on the common issues can be encountered and of course because is opensource!
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
"bit per bit"?dd ... bs=1Mwill do the copy using 1 MB blocks.
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1105560%2ffastest-way-to-migrate-to-a-bigger-ssd-18-04%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
2
What about using a Live System and
sudo dd if=/dev/sdx0 of=/dev/sdy0
and
sudo resize2fs /dev/sdy0
afterwards to resize the partition.
With sdx0 being your old partition and sdy0 being the new one.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
add a comment |
2
What about using a Live System and
sudo dd if=/dev/sdx0 of=/dev/sdy0
and
sudo resize2fs /dev/sdy0
afterwards to resize the partition.
With sdx0 being your old partition and sdy0 being the new one.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
add a comment |
2
2
2
What about using a Live System and
sudo dd if=/dev/sdx0 of=/dev/sdy0
and
sudo resize2fs /dev/sdy0
afterwards to resize the partition.
With sdx0 being your old partition and sdy0 being the new one.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
What about using a Live System and
sudo dd if=/dev/sdx0 of=/dev/sdy0
and
sudo resize2fs /dev/sdy0
afterwards to resize the partition.
With sdx0 being your old partition and sdy0 being the new one.
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
edited Dec 30 '18 at 12:45
user535733
7,73722942
7,73722942
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
answered Dec 30 '18 at 11:32
theFeitertheFeiter
274
274
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
add a comment |
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
dd: how long would it take to duplicate around 100 GB approx.? resize2fs: does it expand the file system to the max avail. capacity?
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:13
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
"man resize2fs" will tell you that if no size is specified, the full partition size is used, which is probably what you are looking for. dd indeed might be slower than solutions in the other answer.
– vanadium
Dec 30 '18 at 15:21
add a comment |
0
For a fast migration you have more than a couple of choice (and for fast not use dd, it copy bit per bit)
common used tools:
https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ (should free to personal use)
https://clonezilla.org/ (open source)
https://www.symantec.com/products/ghost-solutions-suite (commercial)
You can also decide to create a tar of your OS and restore it (more manual work to do but still fast then dd)
- https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem/TAR
Personally I suggest you to use clonezilla, have a large community and a good Knowledge on the common issues can be encountered and of course because is opensource!
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
"bit per bit"?dd ... bs=1Mwill do the copy using 1 MB blocks.
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
0
For a fast migration you have more than a couple of choice (and for fast not use dd, it copy bit per bit)
common used tools:
https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ (should free to personal use)
https://clonezilla.org/ (open source)
https://www.symantec.com/products/ghost-solutions-suite (commercial)
You can also decide to create a tar of your OS and restore it (more manual work to do but still fast then dd)
- https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem/TAR
Personally I suggest you to use clonezilla, have a large community and a good Knowledge on the common issues can be encountered and of course because is opensource!
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
"bit per bit"?dd ... bs=1Mwill do the copy using 1 MB blocks.
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
0
0
0
For a fast migration you have more than a couple of choice (and for fast not use dd, it copy bit per bit)
common used tools:
https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ (should free to personal use)
https://clonezilla.org/ (open source)
https://www.symantec.com/products/ghost-solutions-suite (commercial)
You can also decide to create a tar of your OS and restore it (more manual work to do but still fast then dd)
- https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem/TAR
Personally I suggest you to use clonezilla, have a large community and a good Knowledge on the common issues can be encountered and of course because is opensource!
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
For a fast migration you have more than a couple of choice (and for fast not use dd, it copy bit per bit)
common used tools:
https://www.acronis.com/en-us/ (should free to personal use)
https://clonezilla.org/ (open source)
https://www.symantec.com/products/ghost-solutions-suite (commercial)
You can also decide to create a tar of your OS and restore it (more manual work to do but still fast then dd)
- https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem/TAR
Personally I suggest you to use clonezilla, have a large community and a good Knowledge on the common issues can be encountered and of course because is opensource!
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
answered Dec 30 '18 at 12:06
AtomiX84AtomiX84
38918
38918
"bit per bit"?dd ... bs=1Mwill do the copy using 1 MB blocks.
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
"bit per bit"?dd ... bs=1Mwill do the copy using 1 MB blocks.
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
"bit per bit"?
dd ... bs=1M will do the copy using 1 MB blocks.– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
"bit per bit"?
dd ... bs=1M will do the copy using 1 MB blocks.– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:49
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
yes, but as per the first answer and if you do not pass any flags to dd the default is that, off course with the base count flag will faster then normal, but you have also to think the dd command do not skip free space, so the image size of 500GB disk will be 500GB, does not metter if the disk is in use at 30%. For this I suggest different solution, partclone is more evoluted then dd for this pourpose.
– AtomiX84
Dec 30 '18 at 12:54
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
In a low usage situation any other tool than a block by block copy is preferred, yes. Then you also have other issues -> superuser.com/a/1388090/346288
– Hannu
Dec 30 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1105560%2ffastest-way-to-migrate-to-a-bigger-ssd-18-04%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
Is having both disks in the system an option?
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Dec 30 '18 at 13:03
no, I don't want to use both disks afterwards. (limited=because of other jobs that should run at a certain time) Murphy: yes, I'm willing to prepare everything as good as possible
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 13:12
1
I boot install media from one SSD using grub's loopmount and toram parameter and install to another SSD in about 10 minutes. Then I restore /home & data partitions. Fully working system in about an hour. I always suggest new installs rather than image copy, but since going from smaller to larger you can do a image copy. DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, it also is slow as it also copies bit by bit and includes all the blank space.
– oldfred
Dec 30 '18 at 14:57
> DD is known as disk destroyer so should be last choice, - Oh, I didn't know that, thanks a lot for mentioning it! I'll probably try clonezilla or acronis
– ssssstut
Dec 30 '18 at 21:59