clonezilla-live Mailing List for Clonezilla (Page 37)
A partition and disk imaging/cloning program
Brought to you by:
steven_shiau
Menu
▾
▴
clonezilla-live — Anything about Clonezilla live
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(10) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
(22) |
Aug
(26) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(25) |
Dec
(13) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(54) |
Feb
(65) |
Mar
(15) |
Apr
(12) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(46) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(71) |
Sep
(22) |
Oct
(13) |
Nov
(16) |
Dec
(65) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(18) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(26) |
Apr
(82) |
May
(36) |
Jun
(45) |
Jul
(40) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(44) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(38) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(16) |
Feb
(13) |
Mar
(19) |
Apr
(27) |
May
(37) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(36) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(4) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(20) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
(7) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(12) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(15) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2020 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(11) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2022 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(4) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(13) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2023 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
(4) |
May
(6) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2024 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
(9) |
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2025 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(10) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(7) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Bill G. <gu...@io...> - 2010-04-27 23:06:14
|
I'm sure this has been discussed and explained before, but I can't seem to find it... I have an old image of Windows XP that was saved as hda2. For some reason, hda1 was not saved. (hda1 was the familiar "Dell utility partition," which is really not necessary anyway.) I want to simply create one partition on the target drive, as hda1. I know that I will have to fiddle with the Windows boot.ini file later, but it seems that clonezilla will not let me directly restore the image that HAD been hda2 to a new partition that is hda1. It ends quickly with a failure message suggesting a corrupt image. If I create a dummy hda1 and then create an NTFS hda2 of appropriate size, then it works. But it seems that I should not have to do that. Any suggestions? Thanks, -Bill- |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-23 12:01:32
|
Great! Thanks. Steven. Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > Yes, i have reported that! > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Steven Shiau <st...@nc... > <mailto:st...@nc...>> wrote: > > So maybe you can report this false alarm to avast? > > Steven. > > Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > > Hi! > > I ran avast professional antivirus and it sensed a xxz.aa file > (part of a clonezilla image on another partition) as a virus :-) > Be carefull not to let avast delete that file! > > Zoltan > > -- > http://mbicomp.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Clonezilla-live mailing list > Clo...@li... > <mailto:Clo...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live > > > > -- > Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> > National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. > http://www.nchc.org.tw > Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A > Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A > > > > > -- > http://mbicomp.com/ -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-22 14:49:20
|
So maybe you can report this false alarm to avast? Steven. Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > Hi! > > I ran avast professional antivirus and it sensed a xxz.aa file (part > of a clonezilla image on another partition) as a virus :-) > Be carefull not to let avast delete that file! > > Zoltan > > -- > http://mbicomp.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Clonezilla-live mailing list > Clo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Zoltan K. N. <ker...@gm...> - 2010-04-22 05:02:04
|
Hi! I ran avast professional antivirus and it sensed a xxz.aa file (part of a clonezilla image on another partition) as a virus :-) Be carefull not to let avast delete that file! Zoltan -- http://mbicomp.com/ |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-19 14:10:09
|
Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > Thank you! I'l give it a try. > > by the way can you tell me what's the difference betwwen > > device-device > device-image device-device is for disk to disk, or partition to partition clone, without image. device-image is for you to save a disk/partition as an image, or restore an image to a disk/partition. You can refer to http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/#step-by-step for more details. Steven. > > at the begining? I alwasy use the first one. > > Thanks > > Zoltan > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Steven Shiau <st...@nc... > <mailto:st...@nc...>> wrote: > > > > Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been using the latest clonezilla karmic. But is there a > chance another version is better? > > Well, if you have newer hardware and the karmic does not support, > you can give 20100414-lucid a try. > If the karmic one did the job for you, it's recommended to stick > with that. However, newer releases normally have newer features if > you want to try something new :) > Anyway, remember to backup important data before you use > clonezilla, this is the rule # 1. > > Steven. > > > Thanks, > > Zoltan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find > bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Clonezilla-live mailing list > Clo...@li... > <mailto:Clo...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live > > > > -- > Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> > National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. > http://www.nchc.org.tw > Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A > Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A > > > > > -- > http://mbicomp.com/ -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 04:04:33
|
Zoltan Kerenyi Nagy wrote: > Hi, > > I've been using the latest clonezilla karmic. But is there a chance > another version is better? Well, if you have newer hardware and the karmic does not support, you can give 20100414-lucid a try. If the karmic one did the job for you, it's recommended to stick with that. However, newer releases normally have newer features if you want to try something new :) Anyway, remember to backup important data before you use clonezilla, this is the rule # 1. Steven. > > Thanks, > > Zoltan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Clonezilla-live mailing list > Clo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Johnny S. <li...@op...> - 2010-04-17 04:03:04
|
Ok and thanks again Steven I will try and send the image to another server and see if that will work. But also, each time I tried to start with the new, imaged drive, I always had the original disks disconnected so the two sets of LVM's were never visible at the same time. But hey, I have been trying now for 2 weeks so one more method certainly cant hurt and who knows? Maybe this will be the one! On 4/16/2010 8:55 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: > Hi Johnny, > If you have ssh, nfs, or Samba server, you can save the image on that > server, and the space does not require to be 320GB, Clonezilla will > only save the used blocks, and it will compress too. E.g. if the only > space on the disk is about 100 GB, and the save image might be 30 GB. > > "Device to device" clone is not really the same as "device -> image -> > device", since after you save the device as the image, you can remove > the original, source disk, replace it with destination disk. Then the > same LVM won't coexist at the same time. > > Steven. > > Johnny Stork wrote: >> Unfortunately I dont have a spare 320gb on a single drive anywhere to >> place the image. But if its an identical image, how could this make a >> difference? Would this file image simply be the same image reproduced >> on the second drive? >> >> I believe the issue has something to do with the physical drive going >> from /dev/hdb to /dev/hda on the copy/target, and/or having UID's for >> the drive being different. >> >> Thsi seems to make sense but I dont know how to address it. >> >> Thanks again for all your help :) >> >> On 4/16/2010 8:19 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> Hi Johnny, >>> Maybe this helps. As I mentioned, if you did that via "device to >>> device' option, maybe you can try to do "device-image" option. >>> http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/fine-print.php?path=./01_Save_disk_image/06-dev-img.doc#06-dev-img.doc >>> >>> >>> Steven. >>> >>> Johnny Stork wrote: >>>> Thanks guys, still no luck and I guess I have to give up at this >>>> point. >>>> >>>> Unless there are any more suggestions? >>>> >>>> >>>> Since the new drive is actuall physically seen as /dev/sda (the >>>> original/source drive in the old RAID was seen as /dev/sdb), could >>>> this be the problem and fixed with an edit to a lvm config file >>>> somewhere? Or maybe they need new UID's? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the >>>> cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and >>>> could not find "VolGroup00" >>>> >>>> I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> >>>> pvscan: >>>> >>>> PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] >>>> Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] >>>> >>>> vgscan: >>>> >>>> Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 >>>> >>>> lvscan >>>> >>>> >>>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit >>>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit >>>> >>>> On 4/16/2010 8:02 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>> Kevin W. Wall wrote: >>>>>> Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, >>>>>>> so it's >>>>>>> very inefficient... >>>>>>> >>>>>> What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way >>>>>> for you to >>>>>> figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most >>>>>> efficient. >>>>>> Or separate ibs& obs parameters if using different hard drives >>>>>> with differing >>>>>> cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use >>>>>> a block size >>>>>> that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if >>>>>> you are >>>>>> doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board >>>>>> caches, that >>>>>> probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even >>>>>> 16MB would >>>>>> be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for >>>>>> bs / ibs / obs? >>>>>> >>>>>> -kevin >>>>>> >>>>> Kevin, >>>>> Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by >>>>> partclone.dd. >>>>> >>>>> Steven. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Johnny Stork |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 03:59:07
|
Hi Jorge, Jorge Fábregas wrote: > On Wednesday 14 April 2010 09:44:55 Steven Shiau wrote: > >> Did you try 1.2.5-1? >> > > Wow! I tried 1.2.5-2 today and it was about 200% faster! Here are the test > results: > > For both tests, I used the following: > > - partition image backup to SSH server thru Gigabit link > - Filessytem: ext3 > - Device size: 58 GB > - Space in use: 3.5 GB > - Block size: 4096 bytes > - size in MB to split partition image: 1000000 (to avoid split) > - Compression on image: none > - the rest of settings were default ones > > For the above scenario, the times were: > > a) Using clonezilla-live-1.2.4-28-686.iso, it took 8 minutes and 5 seconds > > b) Using clonezilla-live-1.2.5-2.686.iso, it took 2 minutes and 31 seconds > > The elapsed time above is just after hitting "Are you sure ..." where you > press "y" until the end of the image creation + hw gathering info output etc, > specifically "Press Enter to continue...". > > Impressive really. Excellent job guys! > Cool. Thanks for confirming that. Actually partclone still has room to be improved. Thomas Tsai will try to make it recently. > So when does "testing" becomes "stable". Is it based on some time or is it if > it's been there for some time without many people reporting any issues? > It depends. Normally we will release a stable one in about 2 months. If people report any issue, definitely we will do our best to fix it. Actually if the version you are using did the job for you, stick with it. Steven. > All the best, > Jorge > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Clonezilla-live mailing list > Clo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 03:53:23
|
Hi Johnny, If you have ssh, nfs, or Samba server, you can save the image on that server, and the space does not require to be 320GB, Clonezilla will only save the used blocks, and it will compress too. E.g. if the only space on the disk is about 100 GB, and the save image might be 30 GB. "Device to device" clone is not really the same as "device -> image -> device", since after you save the device as the image, you can remove the original, source disk, replace it with destination disk. Then the same LVM won't coexist at the same time. Steven. Johnny Stork wrote: > Unfortunately I dont have a spare 320gb on a single drive anywhere to > place the image. But if its an identical image, how could this make a > difference? Would this file image simply be the same image reproduced > on the second drive? > > I believe the issue has something to do with the physical drive going > from /dev/hdb to /dev/hda on the copy/target, and/or having UID's for > the drive being different. > > Thsi seems to make sense but I dont know how to address it. > > Thanks again for all your help :) > > On 4/16/2010 8:19 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >> Hi Johnny, >> Maybe this helps. As I mentioned, if you did that via "device to >> device' option, maybe you can try to do "device-image" option. >> http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/fine-print.php?path=./01_Save_disk_image/06-dev-img.doc#06-dev-img.doc >> >> >> Steven. >> >> Johnny Stork wrote: >>> Thanks guys, still no luck and I guess I have to give up at this point. >>> >>> Unless there are any more suggestions? >>> >>> >>> Since the new drive is actuall physically seen as /dev/sda (the >>> original/source drive in the old RAID was seen as /dev/sdb), could >>> this be the problem and fixed with an edit to a lvm config file >>> somewhere? Or maybe they need new UID's? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the >>> cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and >>> could not find "VolGroup00" >>> >>> I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the >>> following: >>> >>> >>> pvscan: >>> >>> PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] >>> Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] >>> >>> vgscan: >>> >>> Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 >>> >>> lvscan >>> >>> >>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit >>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit >>> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit >>> >>> On 4/16/2010 8:02 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>> Kevin W. Wall wrote: >>>>> Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so >>>>>> it's >>>>>> very inefficient... >>>>>> >>>>> What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for >>>>> you to >>>>> figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most >>>>> efficient. >>>>> Or separate ibs& obs parameters if using different hard drives >>>>> with differing >>>>> cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use >>>>> a block size >>>>> that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if >>>>> you are >>>>> doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board >>>>> caches, that >>>>> probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even >>>>> 16MB would >>>>> be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs >>>>> / ibs / obs? >>>>> >>>>> -kevin >>>>> >>>> Kevin, >>>> Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by >>>> partclone.dd. >>>> >>>> Steven. >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Johnny S. <li...@op...> - 2010-04-17 03:21:35
|
Unfortunately I dont have a spare 320gb on a single drive anywhere to place the image. But if its an identical image, how could this make a difference? Would this file image simply be the same image reproduced on the second drive? I believe the issue has something to do with the physical drive going from /dev/hdb to /dev/hda on the copy/target, and/or having UID's for the drive being different. Thsi seems to make sense but I dont know how to address it. Thanks again for all your help :) On 4/16/2010 8:19 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: > Hi Johnny, > Maybe this helps. As I mentioned, if you did that via "device to > device' option, maybe you can try to do "device-image" option. > http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/fine-print.php?path=./01_Save_disk_image/06-dev-img.doc#06-dev-img.doc > > > Steven. > > Johnny Stork wrote: >> Thanks guys, still no luck and I guess I have to give up at this point. >> >> Unless there are any more suggestions? >> >> >> Since the new drive is actuall physically seen as /dev/sda (the >> original/source drive in the old RAID was seen as /dev/sdb), could >> this be the problem and fixed with an edit to a lvm config file >> somewhere? Or maybe they need new UID's? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the >> cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and >> could not find "VolGroup00" >> >> I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the >> following: >> >> >> pvscan: >> >> PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] >> Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] >> >> vgscan: >> >> Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 >> >> lvscan >> >> >> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit >> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit >> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit >> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit >> ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit >> >> On 4/16/2010 8:02 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> Kevin W. Wall wrote: >>>> Steven Shiau wrote: >>>> >>>>> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so >>>>> it's >>>>> very inefficient... >>>>> >>>> What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for >>>> you to >>>> figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most >>>> efficient. >>>> Or separate ibs& obs parameters if using different hard drives >>>> with differing >>>> cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use a >>>> block size >>>> that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if you >>>> are >>>> doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board >>>> caches, that >>>> probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even >>>> 16MB would >>>> be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs >>>> / ibs / obs? >>>> >>>> -kevin >>>> >>> Kevin, >>> Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by >>> partclone.dd. >>> >>> Steven. >>> >> >> > -- Johnny Stork |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 03:17:14
|
Hi Johnny, Maybe this helps. As I mentioned, if you did that via "device to device' option, maybe you can try to do "device-image" option. http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/fine-print.php?path=./01_Save_disk_image/06-dev-img.doc#06-dev-img.doc Steven. Johnny Stork wrote: > Thanks guys, still no luck and I guess I have to give up at this point. > > Unless there are any more suggestions? > > > Since the new drive is actuall physically seen as /dev/sda (the > original/source drive in the old RAID was seen as /dev/sdb), could this > be the problem and fixed with an edit to a lvm config file somewhere? Or > maybe they need new UID's? > > > > > > > I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the > cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and > could not find "VolGroup00" > > I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the following: > > > pvscan: > > PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] > Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] > > vgscan: > > Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 > > lvscan > > > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit > > On 4/16/2010 8:02 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: > >> Kevin W. Wall wrote: >> >> >>> Steven Shiau wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so it's >>>> very inefficient... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for you to >>> figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most efficient. >>> Or separate ibs& obs parameters if using different hard drives with differing >>> cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use a block size >>> that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if you are >>> doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board caches, that >>> probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even 16MB would >>> be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs / ibs / obs? >>> >>> -kevin >>> >>> >>> >> Kevin, >> Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by >> partclone.dd. >> >> Steven. >> >> >> > > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Johnny S. <li...@op...> - 2010-04-17 03:09:42
|
Thanks guys, still no luck and I guess I have to give up at this point. Unless there are any more suggestions? Since the new drive is actuall physically seen as /dev/sda (the original/source drive in the old RAID was seen as /dev/sdb), could this be the problem and fixed with an edit to a lvm config file somewhere? Or maybe they need new UID's? I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and could not find "VolGroup00" I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the following: pvscan: PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] vgscan: Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 lvscan ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit On 4/16/2010 8:02 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: > > Kevin W. Wall wrote: > >> Steven Shiau wrote: >> >> >>> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so it's >>> very inefficient... >>> >>> >> What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for you to >> figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most efficient. >> Or separate ibs& obs parameters if using different hard drives with differing >> cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use a block size >> that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if you are >> doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board caches, that >> probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even 16MB would >> be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs / ibs / obs? >> >> -kevin >> >> > Kevin, > Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by > partclone.dd. > > Steven. > > -- Johnny Stork |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 03:08:26
|
Lukas,
Thanks. Thomas Tsai will revise this and try to use them.
In the future, we will have more options in partclone to disable some
jobs, e.g. "-q, --quiet" to skip all the rate messages update.
Thanks.
Steven.
Lukas Grässlin wrote:
> On 14.04.2010 23:16, Steven Shiau wrote:
>
>> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>
>>> On 14.04.2010 16:15, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to
>>>>>> give it try.
>>>>>> You can tune it to see if any difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would
>>>>> be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed
>>>>> anyway is run.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I will check with Thomas,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No problem.
>>>
>>> You can see it e.g. here in restore.c :
>>>
>>> /// start restore image file to partition
>>> for( block_id = 0; block_id < image_hdr.totalblock; block_id++ ){
>>> /* doing things, copying the blocks */
>>> update_pui(&prog, copied, done);
>>> } // end of for
>>>
>>>
>>> I did a patch for myself within I told it just call update_pui once for
>>> 5000 blocks. Don't know if its a good idea, but it worked ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Good, and the performance is?
>> Could you please also send us the patch file?
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> I got about 20-39 MB/s.
> Here is the patch. There are some other changes within:
>
> * I completeley disabled the update_pui on the server side, because
> clonezilla anyway doesn't show the output there.
>
> * I changed the display of the speed from */min to */s beaucse I thoght
> it's better readable for the most people.
>
> * I implemented that crc32-checks can be disabled. Not an good idea, but
> I wanted it for testing and its disabled by default.
>
> Sorry, I had no time to rip off these other changes but it should be ok
> anyway I hope.
>
> Regards,
> Lukas
>
>
>> Steven.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's
>>>>>> partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere...
>>>>>> Please let us know the results.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lukas,
>>>>>>>> Please send us gprof results you have.
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly
>>>>>>>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can
>>>>>>>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the
>>>>>>>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like
>>>>>>>>> calculating the
>>>>>>>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Steven,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I
>>>>>>>>>> always used the
>>>>>>>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool.
>>>>>>>>>> Since partimage
>>>>>>>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and
>>>>>>>>>> considering that
>>>>>>>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it
>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after
>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual
>>>>>>>>>> creation of the
>>>>>>>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as
>>>>>>>>>> partclone starts.
>>>>>>>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
>>>>>>>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find
>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>>>>>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Clo...@li...
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org>
National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw
Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A
Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A
|
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-17 02:59:58
|
Kevin W. Wall wrote: > Steven Shiau wrote: > >> BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so it's >> very inefficient... >> > > What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for you to > figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most efficient. > Or separate ibs & obs parameters if using different hard drives with differing > cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use a block size > that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if you are > doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board caches, that > probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even 16MB would > be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs / ibs / obs? > > -kevin > Kevin, Thanks for sharing this. However, I was wrong... Now it's done by partclone.dd. Steven. -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Zoltan K. N. <ker...@gm...> - 2010-04-16 06:48:51
|
Hi, I've been using the latest clonezilla karmic. But is there a chance another version is better? Thanks, Zoltan |
|
From: Jorge F. <jor...@gm...> - 2010-04-15 23:22:18
|
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 09:44:55 Steven Shiau wrote: > Did you try 1.2.5-1? Wow! I tried 1.2.5-2 today and it was about 200% faster! Here are the test results: For both tests, I used the following: - partition image backup to SSH server thru Gigabit link - Filessytem: ext3 - Device size: 58 GB - Space in use: 3.5 GB - Block size: 4096 bytes - size in MB to split partition image: 1000000 (to avoid split) - Compression on image: none - the rest of settings were default ones For the above scenario, the times were: a) Using clonezilla-live-1.2.4-28-686.iso, it took 8 minutes and 5 seconds b) Using clonezilla-live-1.2.5-2.686.iso, it took 2 minutes and 31 seconds The elapsed time above is just after hitting "Are you sure ..." where you press "y" until the end of the image creation + hw gathering info output etc, specifically "Press Enter to continue...". Impressive really. Excellent job guys! So when does "testing" becomes "stable". Is it based on some time or is it if it's been there for some time without many people reporting any issues? All the best, Jorge |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-15 06:53:45
|
On 14.04.2010 23:16, Steven Shiau wrote:
>
>
> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>> On 14.04.2010 16:15, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>
>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to
>>>>> give it try.
>>>>> You can tune it to see if any difference.
>>>>>
>>>> As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would
>>>> be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed
>>>> anyway is run.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks. I will check with Thomas,
>>>
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> You can see it e.g. here in restore.c :
>>
>> /// start restore image file to partition
>> for( block_id = 0; block_id < image_hdr.totalblock; block_id++ ){
>> /* doing things, copying the blocks */
>> update_pui(&prog, copied, done);
>> } // end of for
>>
>>
>> I did a patch for myself within I told it just call update_pui once for
>> 5000 blocks. Don't know if its a good idea, but it worked ;)
>>
> Good, and the performance is?
> Could you please also send us the patch file?
> Thanks.
I got about 20-39 MB/s.
Here is the patch. There are some other changes within:
* I completeley disabled the update_pui on the server side, because
clonezilla anyway doesn't show the output there.
* I changed the display of the speed from */min to */s beaucse I thoght
it's better readable for the most people.
* I implemented that crc32-checks can be disabled. Not an good idea, but
I wanted it for testing and its disabled by default.
Sorry, I had no time to rip off these other changes but it should be ok
anyway I hope.
Regards,
Lukas
>
> Steven.
>>
>>
>>>> If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's
>>>>> partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere...
>>>>> Please let us know the results.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lukas,
>>>>>>> Please send us gprof results you have.
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly
>>>>>>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can
>>>>>>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the
>>>>>>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like
>>>>>>>> calculating the
>>>>>>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Steven,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I
>>>>>>>>> always used the
>>>>>>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool.
>>>>>>>>> Since partimage
>>>>>>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and
>>>>>>>>> considering that
>>>>>>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it
>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after
>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual
>>>>>>>>> creation of the
>>>>>>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as
>>>>>>>>> partclone starts.
>>>>>>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
>>>>>>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find
>>>>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>>>>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Clo...@li...
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Lukas Grässlin
Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany
p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23
Collax - Simply Linux.
Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach
AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942
|
|
From: Kevin W. W. <kev...@gm...> - 2010-04-15 03:39:17
|
Steven Shiau wrote: > BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so it's > very inefficient... What are you using for the block size for dd? If there's a way for you to figure out the hard drives cache size, that might be the most efficient. Or separate ibs & obs parameters if using different hard drives with differing cache sizes. In the old days, the conventional wisdom was to use a block size that corresponded to the block size of the file systems, but if you are doing raw disk I/O with modern drives that have huge on-board caches, that probably doesn't make sense. I'd think something like 8MB or even 16MB would be worth trying. Have you experimented with different sizes for bs / ibs / obs? -kevin -- Kevin W. Wall "The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents." -- Nathaniel Borenstein, co-creator of MIME |
|
From: Jorge F. <jor...@gm...> - 2010-04-14 23:38:15
|
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 09:44:55 Steven Shiau wrote: > Partclone need to know where the used blocks are in the partition, so > first it searches them. Ahh got it. Thanks for the explanation. > BTW, which version of Clonezilla live are you using? Did you try 1.2.5-1? I tried the latest stable (1.2.4-28). Hmm ok I'll give 1.2.5-1 a try and will report back. Thanks! Best regards, Jorge |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-14 22:23:09
|
Johnny Stork wrote: > Morning Steven. So I rebuilt the image/clone (disk to disk), and > notice very briefly while rebooting and exiting CZ, a brief message > scrolled past the screen indicating something about "Duplicate Volume > Group...." or something to that effect, it went by fast. But I guess > this is likely normal since the VG's on the source were duplicated on > the target? After you cloned that, remove the original (source) disk, then reboot. Do not reboot with both of them attached. Maybe doing so makes the system confused? BTW, for LVM, disk to disk is really done by dd in Clonezilla, so it's very inefficient... If you can, maybe save the source disk as an image, remove the source disk, then restore the image to the new disk. Maybe this is faster. Steven. > > I then disconnected the original source drives and booted from the > cloned drive alone in the system. Once again it kernel panicked and > could not find "VolGroup00" > > I then rebooted the CZ disk and went to the shell, and ran the following: > > > pvscan: > > PV /dev/sda2 VG VolGroup 00 lvm2 [297.91 GiB / 0 free] > Total:1 [297.91 GiB] / in use:1 [297.91 GiB] / in no VG: 0 [0 ] > > vgscan: > > Found Volume Group "VolGroup00" using metadata type lvm2 > > lvscan > > > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol00' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol02' [233.91 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol03' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol01' [20.00 Gib] inherit > ACTIVE 'dev'VolGroup00/LogVol04' [4.00 Gib] inherit > > On 4/11/2010 7:08 PM, Steven Shiau wrote: >> How about if you boot Clonezilla live on the cloned machine, then run: >> 1. sudo -i >> 2. pvscan >> 3. vgscan >> 4. lvscan >> >> Please pot the results of 2, 3, and 4. >> >> Steven. >> >> On 2010/4/9 下午 10:55, Johnny Stork wrote: >>> I have tried dd from a LIve Ubuntu disk, and now clonezilla-live to >>> create an identical image of a RAID-1 array with 2 mirrored drives, >>> onto >>> a single SATA drive. However, both methods still cant seem to boot and >>> have trouble finding the logical volumes? Maybe I am not using >>> Clonzilla >>> correclty, or its simply not possible. I would be so grateful if >>> someone >>> could let me know if this is possible with clonezilla. >>> >>> Below is what I tried from the Ubuntu Live disk but I also tried with >>> Clonezilla following the onscreen prompts. >>> >>> Niether method seems to be able to find the local volume/groups at >>> boot. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have a CentOS 5.4 server with a 3ware 9500 SATA Raid card with 2x320 >>> gb drives as RAID-1. >>> >>> Setup included logical volumes, physical drive is seen as /dev/sda >>> >>> This is what fdisk sees: >>> >>> root@gateway:~# fdisk -l >>> >>> Disk /dev/sda: 319.9 GB, 319988695040 bytes >>> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38903 cylinders >>> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >>> >>> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >>> /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux >>> /dev/sda2 14 38903 312383925 8e Linux LVM >>> >>> >>> >>> What I am trying to do is remove the 3ware RAID and run the system >>> off a >>> single 320gb SATA drive which is attached. >>> >>> >>> So I plugged in a basic SiL Raid card with a single 320gb drive >>> >>> Booted Ubuntu Live and old RAID-1 array on the 3ware card is seen as >>> /dev./sdb >>> >>> The new, single 320gb drive seen as /dev/sda >>> >>> From a terminal I ran >>> >>> dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sda >>> >>> copy finished with no errors >>> >>> Unplugged the 2x320gb drives on the 3ware controller >>> >>> Booted system, grub loaded (giving me so much false hope) >>> >>> then, the boot failed at... >>> >>> Volume group "VolGroup00" not found >>> unable to access resume device (/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol04) >>> Mount: could not find filesystem '/devroot' >>> >>> >>> So the problem seems to be that the LVM's are not seen? >>> >>> Is there another, or better way to make a compelte, and working mirror >>> of a drive containing logical volumes? >>> >>> >>> When I reboot back in the working system, with the RAID on the 3ware >>> card, this is what both drives now look like to fdisk. >>> >>> root@gateway:~# fdisk -l >>> >>> Disk /dev/sda: 319.9 GB, 319988695040 bytes (3ware working RAID) >>> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38903 cylinders >>> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >>> >>> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >>> /dev/sda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux >>> /dev/sda2 14 38903 312383925 8e Linux LVM >>> >>> Disk /dev/sdb: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes (Non-booting single >>> drive on >>> Sil card) >>> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders >>> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >>> >>> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >>> /dev/sdb1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux >>> /dev/sdb2 14 38903 312383925 8e Linux LVM >>> >> > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-14 21:17:39
|
Lukas Grässlin wrote:
> On 14.04.2010 16:15, Steven Shiau wrote:
>
>> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>
>>>> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to
>>>> give it try.
>>>> You can tune it to see if any difference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would
>>> be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed
>>> anyway is run.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks. I will check with Thomas,
>>
>
> No problem.
>
> You can see it e.g. here in restore.c :
>
> /// start restore image file to partition
> for( block_id = 0; block_id < image_hdr.totalblock; block_id++ ){
> /* doing things, copying the blocks */
> update_pui(&prog, copied, done);
> } // end of for
>
>
> I did a patch for myself within I told it just call update_pui once for
> 5000 blocks. Don't know if its a good idea, but it worked ;)
>
Good, and the performance is?
Could you please also send us the patch file?
Thanks.
Steven.
>
>
>>> If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's
>>>> partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere...
>>>> Please let us know the results.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Steven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lukas,
>>>>>> Please send us gprof results you have.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly
>>>>>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can
>>>>>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the
>>>>>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like
>>>>>>> calculating the
>>>>>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Steven,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I
>>>>>>>> always used the
>>>>>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool.
>>>>>>>> Since partimage
>>>>>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and
>>>>>>>> considering that
>>>>>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it
>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after
>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual
>>>>>>>> creation of the
>>>>>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as
>>>>>>>> partclone starts.
>>>>>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
>>>>>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>>>>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>>>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list
>>>>>>>> Clo...@li...
>>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org>
National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan.
http://www.nchc.org.tw
Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A
Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A
|
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-14 14:51:46
|
On 14.04.2010 16:15, Steven Shiau wrote:
>
>
> Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to
>>> give it try.
>>> You can tune it to see if any difference.
>>>
>>
>> As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would
>> be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed
>> anyway is run.
>>
>>
> Thanks. I will check with Thomas,
No problem.
You can see it e.g. here in restore.c :
/// start restore image file to partition
for( block_id = 0; block_id < image_hdr.totalblock; block_id++ ){
/* doing things, copying the blocks */
update_pui(&prog, copied, done);
} // end of for
I did a patch for myself within I told it just call update_pui once for
5000 blocks. Don't know if its a good idea, but it worked ;)
>> If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's
>>> partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere...
>>> Please let us know the results.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steven.
>>>
>>>> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukas,
>>>>> Please send us gprof results you have.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly
>>>>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can
>>>>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the
>>>>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like
>>>>>> calculating the
>>>>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Steven,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I
>>>>>>> always used the
>>>>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool.
>>>>>>> Since partimage
>>>>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and
>>>>>>> considering that
>>>>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it
>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after
>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual
>>>>>>> creation of the
>>>>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as
>>>>>>> partclone starts.
>>>>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
>>>>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>>>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list
>>>>>>> Clo...@li...
>>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Lukas Grässlin
Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany
p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23
Collax - Simply Linux.
Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach
AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942
|
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-14 14:15:27
|
Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to >> give it try. >> You can tune it to see if any difference. >> > > As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would > be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed > anyway is run. > > Thanks. I will check with Thomas, > If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too. > > > >> BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's >> partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere... >> Please let us know the results. >> Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> Steven. >> >>> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone. >>>> >>>> Lukas, >>>> Please send us gprof results you have. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Steven. >>>> >>>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly >>>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can >>>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the >>>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like calculating the >>>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Lukas >>>>> >>>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hello Steven, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I >>>>>> always used the >>>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool. >>>>>> Since partimage >>>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and >>>>>> considering that >>>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use this. >>>>>> >>>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it >>>>>> started >>>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was some >>>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after >>>>>> that it >>>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual >>>>>> creation of the >>>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as >>>>>> partclone starts. >>>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Jorge >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list >>>>>> Clo...@li... >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-14 14:15:02
|
Lukas Grässlin wrote: > As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would > be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed > anyway is run. > > Thomas, Please make sure "the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed anyway is run". If it's true, I believe this can be improved... Thanks. Steven. -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-14 14:02:49
|
> There is an option "-f" of partclone which you might be interested to > give it try. > You can tune it to see if any difference. As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed anyway is run. If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too. > BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's > partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere... > Please let us know the results. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Steven. >> On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote: >> >>> Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone. >>> >>> Lukas, >>> Please send us gprof results you have. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Steven. >>> >>> On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>> >>>> Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the "on-the-fly >>>> performance" Thread in this mailing list. >>>> >>>> Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can >>>> improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the >>>> expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like calculating the >>>> speed too often which resultes in high cpu load. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Lukas >>>> >>>> On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Steven, >>>>> >>>>> I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I >>>>> always used the >>>>> custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool. >>>>> Since partimage >>>>> seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and >>>>> considering that >>>>> Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use this. >>>>> >>>>> My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it >>>>> started >>>>> saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was some >>>>> progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after >>>>> that it >>>>> started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual >>>>> creation of the >>>>> image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as >>>>> partclone starts. >>>>> Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for Clonezillla. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Jorge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Clonezilla-live mailing list >>>>> Clo...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
4 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
