I am a bit confused about few things and I hope someone could clear this up for me. Is there any particular difference in disk to disk vs disk to image file approach?
I executed following code to recover my dying 2TB USB drive:
ddrescue --force --no-split /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 ~/ddrescue.log
I thought it will make an image file on sdd1 (4TB USB), but instead it now seems to have full copy of entire filesystem, automatically mounted by Ubuntu. I now understand that I maybe should have done
Do I understand correctly, that now, because I did disk to disk instead of disk to image, I do not need to do anything any more and I can safely start using data on new disk?
If so, what is the benefit of doing disk to image?. It seems to me that disk to disk is faster and easier because I now do not have to deal with extracting the image file. I understand the need of image file when one needs to split data to different smaller drives, but in case you have at least same size spare drive?
Extra question: I now seemingly have exact copy of broken drive automatically mounted and working. Because, I ran ddrescue only once without copying any error blocks there has to be some data, it could not recover (it can be free space?). How do I know which data was not recovered? Everything seems to be there.