What if the devices aren't exactly the same size? perhaps the label position starts at the same bit position, but it's not "where the software expects it".Those labels are simply written to specific places on the disk, as a dd(1) makes a bit-for-bit copy there's no reason why those labels aren't on the target device.
If it's smaller that could potentially happen, not if the target is bigger. Although you're going to need to runWhat if the devices aren't exactly the same size? perhaps the label position starts at the same bit position, but it's not "where the software expects it".
gpart recover
in that case to fix the partition table at the end of the device. But both devices are exactly the same, so this really shouldn't be an issue. Yes, but it's the backup table that's missing in that case, the primary table at the start of the device would still be valid.Like gpt backups: they are at the "end of the device", so if the end of device is not exactly the same, looking for it fails.
da0: <JetFlash Transcend 32GB 1100> Removable Direct Access SPC-4 SCSI device
da0: Serial Number 153185GWMN02MINP
da0: 40.000MB/s transfers
da0: 30120MB (61685760 512 byte sectors)
da0: quirks=0x12<NO_6_BYTE,NO_RC16>
da2: <JetFlash Transcend 32GB 1100> Removable Direct Access SPC-4 SCSI device
da2: Serial Number 65410DHNY65AHQ2H
da2: 40.000MB/s transfers
da2: 29163MB (59725824 512 byte sectors)
Understood, it was just an example, the first that came to mind. Given that there are at least 3 ways to put labels on a device/partition, I figured at least one would have the primary location for the at the end of the device. I was just one cup of coffee shy of remembering that.Yes, but it's the backup table that's missing in that case, the primary table at the start of the device would still be valid.