Thread: [Clonezilla-live] drives with 4k sectors?

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Does clonezilla know anything about the partition alignment that linux needs to 
work well on the new drives with 4k sectors?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    les...@gm...

I think this depends on the library we used in partclone, and it should 
be updated enough.
Do you have any problem with that?

Steven.

On 2010年05月26日 13:12, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Does clonezilla know anything about the partition alignment that linux needs to
> work well on the new drives with 4k sectors?
>
>    

-- 
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

On 5/26/2010 10:00 AM, Steven Shiau wrote:
> I think this depends on the library we used in partclone, and it should
> be updated enough.
> Do you have any problem with that?

I haven't tried it yet, but what I really want to do is copy the data 
from a raid mirror on Seagate 750G drives to a WD 'scorpio blue' 2.5" 
drive that claims to have the same capacity - and does in terms of 512 
byte sectors.  I'd like to do it by adding it into the raid, letting it 
sync, then removing it, but that is about 10x slower than doing it with 
a desktop drive and not practical.   So, I'm looking for any other way 
to accomplish this copy to have an offsite backup of this data (which 
happens to be a backuppc archive with millions of hardlinks that make 
techniques other than image copies very slow).

I suspect that even if clonezilla does try to adjust the alignment, it 
will shift the initial offset from 63 to 64 (there's one big partition) 
which will leave the partition space too small to match the original - 
but I can try it to see what happens.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    les...@gm...

On 2010年05月26日 23:26, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/26/2010 10:00 AM, Steven Shiau wrote:
>    
>> I think this depends on the library we used in partclone, and it should
>> be updated enough.
>> Do you have any problem with that?
>>      
> I haven't tried it yet, but what I really want to do is copy the data
> from a raid mirror on Seagate 750G drives to a WD 'scorpio blue' 2.5"
> drive that claims to have the same capacity - and does in terms of 512
> byte sectors.  I'd like to do it by adding it into the raid, letting it
> sync, then removing it, but that is about 10x slower than doing it with
> a desktop drive and not practical.   So, I'm looking for any other way
> to accomplish this copy to have an offsite backup of this data (which
> happens to be a backuppc archive with millions of hardlinks that make
> techniques other than image copies very slow).
>
> I suspect that even if clonezilla does try to adjust the alignment, it
> will shift the initial offset from 63 to 64 (there's one big partition)
> which will leave the partition space too small to match the original -
> but I can try it to see what happens.
>
>    
Yes, please let us know the results if you try that.
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

On 5/27/2010 6:00 AM, Steven Shiau wrote:
>
>>> I think this depends on the library we used in partclone, and it should
>>> be updated enough.
>>> Do you have any problem with that?
>>>
>> I haven't tried it yet, but what I really want to do is copy the data
>> from a raid mirror on Seagate 750G drives to a WD 'scorpio blue' 2.5"
>> drive that claims to have the same capacity - and does in terms of 512
>> byte sectors.  I'd like to do it by adding it into the raid, letting it
>> sync, then removing it, but that is about 10x slower than doing it with
>> a desktop drive and not practical.   So, I'm looking for any other way
>> to accomplish this copy to have an offsite backup of this data (which
>> happens to be a backuppc archive with millions of hardlinks that make
>> techniques other than image copies very slow).
>>
>> I suspect that even if clonezilla does try to adjust the alignment, it
>> will shift the initial offset from 63 to 64 (there's one big partition)
>> which will leave the partition space too small to match the original -
>> but I can try it to see what happens.
>>
>>
> Yes, please let us know the results if you try that.

Using clonezilla-live-20100521-lucid.iso it goes through the same 
motions as it would with a 512 byte sector disk, duplicating the initial 
offset of 63.  I don't think there is any way for it to tell the 
difference, since the drive reports 512 byte sectors - but is slow 
unless you write 8 at once on the right boundaries.

But, something seems to be wrong with partclone's (v0.2.9) math. Right 
now it is saying:
Elapsed   03:11:52
Remaining 01:47:25
Rate      235.94 MB/min

But the progress bar says it is 6% done (which is probably about right).

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    les...@gm...

On 2010年06月02日 03:23, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/27/2010 6:00 AM, Steven Shiau wrote:
>    
>>      
>>>> I think this depends on the library we used in partclone, and it should
>>>> be updated enough.
>>>> Do you have any problem with that?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I haven't tried it yet, but what I really want to do is copy the data
>>> from a raid mirror on Seagate 750G drives to a WD 'scorpio blue' 2.5"
>>> drive that claims to have the same capacity - and does in terms of 512
>>> byte sectors.  I'd like to do it by adding it into the raid, letting it
>>> sync, then removing it, but that is about 10x slower than doing it with
>>> a desktop drive and not practical.   So, I'm looking for any other way
>>> to accomplish this copy to have an offsite backup of this data (which
>>> happens to be a backuppc archive with millions of hardlinks that make
>>> techniques other than image copies very slow).
>>>
>>> I suspect that even if clonezilla does try to adjust the alignment, it
>>> will shift the initial offset from 63 to 64 (there's one big partition)
>>> which will leave the partition space too small to match the original -
>>> but I can try it to see what happens.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Yes, please let us know the results if you try that.
>>      
>
> Using clonezilla-live-20100521-lucid.iso it goes through the same
> motions as it would with a 512 byte sector disk, duplicating the initial
> offset of 63.  I don't think there is any way for it to tell the
> difference, since the drive reports 512 byte sectors - but is slow
> unless you write 8 at once on the right boundaries.
>    
Could you please more info about this "512 byte sector disk"?
> But, something seems to be wrong with partclone's (v0.2.9) math. Right
> now it is saying:
> Elapsed   03:11:52
> Remaining 01:47:25
> Rate      235.94 MB/min
>
> But the progress bar says it is 6% done (which is probably about right).
>    
What's the partition size? What's the used block space?
Could you please post more info on the screen, something like here:
http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/01_Save_disk_image/images/ocs-11-save-progress-2.png
?

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

On 6/3/2010 9:28 AM, Steven Shiau wrote:

>
>> Using clonezilla-live-20100521-lucid.iso it goes through the same
>> motions as it would with a 512 byte sector disk, duplicating the initial
>> offset of 63.  I don't think there is any way for it to tell the
>> difference, since the drive reports 512 byte sectors - but is slow
>> unless you write 8 at once on the right boundaries.
>>
> Could you please more info about this "512 byte sector disk"?

It's a Western Digital 'Sonic Blue' 750 gig laptop drive.  They've done 
approximately the same thing with their 'green' desktop drives.  Here's 
some generic info on the issue:
https://lwn.net/Articles/377895/

hdparm -I  reports it as a 512 byte physical/logical drive even though 
it has to do a read/modify/write unless you write 4k on the right 
boundaries.

>> But, something seems to be wrong with partclone's (v0.2.9) math. Right
>> now it is saying:
>> Elapsed   03:11:52
>> Remaining 01:47:25
>> Rate      235.94 MB/min
>>
>> But the progress bar says it is 6% done (which is probably about right).
>>
> What's the partition size? What's the used block space?

It's a 750 gig drive with 1 partition, about 75% used.  What I'm trying 
to do is enough of a corner case (cloning from a 512k to a 4k sector 
drive) that it might not be worth the trouble to investigate.  I thought 
it might work to use fdisk's expert mode to shift the beginning of the 
partition from 63 to 56 and then clone the partition instead of the 
disk, but that seemed even slower. I couldn't wait for either test to 
complete.  If I shift forward to the recommended 64, then the space will 
be smaller than the source I want to copy.

> Could you please post more info on the screen, something like here:
> http://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-live/doc/01_Save_disk_image/images/ocs-11-save-progress-2.png

It may be another week before I can boot this machine into 
clonezilla-live again.  How do I get the text display instead of the 
dialog box with the progress bar?

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     les...@gm...

Thread: [Clonezilla-live] drives with 4k sectors?

A partition and disk imaging/cloning program

clonezilla-live