|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2003-04-08 23:10:37
|
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't think a sparse file is really the right answer for what I > think ntfsimage is good for - although I can see it being useful when sparse file + standard utils. tar, bzip2, etc. > you want an optimised disk-to-disk copy. > > What I want is the ability to produce a stream representation of the > original filesystem, eg for backup. I wrote it for disk-to-disk copy (debug) _and_ efficient streaming backup purpose _and_ considering my time constrains. It can stream the data however I'm sure it's slower than a special format but works with standard tools [and most importantly it took only hours to implement by some minimal changes and massive deletion to ntfsresize]. > If there is no separate image format then indeed you don't need a > restore utility. But, if you want a stream image format suitable for > writing to tapes, file transfer, etc., then you have to have a decoder > as well as an encoder. I do it as: ntfsimage -o - device | bzip2 ... > I tend to think that sparse files are a bit of an anachronism, really. I think sparse files are very useful in many cases but filesystem support is ackward for them. IMHO only XFS can provide info to userspace tools about the location of holes. This results, among others, extremely poor performances in many cases and people start to think sparse files are a bit of an anachronism ;) > If you could send me the code you do have, it might help me at least OK, sometime tomorrow. Szaka |
