Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-29 Thread Scott Silva
on 9-28-2010 5:53 PM Timothy Murphy spake the following:
 Scott Silva wrote:
 
 I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk.
 It came with the machine, but I never use it.
 However, I would like to save it if possible,
 as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110),
 eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.

 All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have
 a M110, but I have several ML350's
 
 Sorry, I was talking nonsense.
 I have two servers (in different locations), both running CentOS-5.5.
 One is an HP ProLiant,
 but the one with the bad disk is actually a Dell PowerEdge T105.
 The information that came with this explicitly warns
 against using Linux to update the BIOS.
 (The machine actually came with a curious mixture of Windows and Linux,
 in the form of a partial RedHat Enterprise system.)
 Also the Western Digital disk software
 all seems to assume the the machine is running under Windows.
 (Admittedly it didn't tell me anything more than smart under CentOS.)
 
 
If you really NEED windows for systems like this there is a tool out there to
make a complete windows environment that boots from a CD or USB key...
ubcd4win.com That way you can have the server clean and still use the tools

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-28 Thread Timothy Murphy
Jerry McAllister wrote:

 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
 
 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
 
 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.
 
 Any opinions on the better of the two?
 
 
 I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore.
 The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all
 links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.

I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk.
It came with the machine, but I never use it.
However, I would like to save it if possible,
as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110),
eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.


-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-28 Thread Les Mikesell
On 9/28/2010 10:27 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 Jerry McAllister wrote:

 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.

 Any opinions on the better of the two?


 I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore.
 The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all
 links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.

 I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk.
 It came with the machine, but I never use it.
 However, I would like to save it if possible,
 as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110),
 eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.

If you know how to reinstall the multi-boot setup, you should be able to 
use clonezilla-live to clone specific partitions and either reinstall 
others or use a file oriented copy technique.  And if you have another 
machine or disk to hold the image you can make a compressed image file 
copy as a backup in case your drive dies before you decide how you want 
to set up the replacement.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-28 Thread Scott Silva
on 9-28-2010 8:27 AM Timothy Murphy spake the following:
 Jerry McAllister wrote:
 
 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.

 Any opinions on the better of the two?


 I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore.
 The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all
 links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.
 
 I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk.
 It came with the machine, but I never use it.
 However, I would like to save it if possible,
 as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110),
 eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
 
 
All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have a
M110, but I have several ML350's

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-28 Thread Timothy Murphy
Les Mikesell wrote:

 If you know how to reinstall the multi-boot setup, you should be able to
 use clonezilla-live to clone specific partitions and either reinstall
 others or use a file oriented copy technique.  And if you have another
 machine or disk to hold the image you can make a compressed image file
 copy as a backup in case your drive dies before you decide how you want
 to set up the replacement.

Yes, thanks for all your help.

I have decided to use clonezilla,
as I discovered on further reading about Acronis WD version
that clone for them means clone a whole disk;
and I couldn't find any firm statement that this operation
actually left anything on the source disk.
(They use the term transfer throughout.)

I found the Acronis documentation hard to follow;
but to be fair Clonezilla documentation is fairly obscure too.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-28 Thread Timothy Murphy
Scott Silva wrote:

 I should have admitted that there is a Windows partition on the old disk.
 It came with the machine, but I never use it.
 However, I would like to save it if possible,
 as there seem to be some operations on this computer (HP ProLiant M110),
 eg updating the BIOS, which seem to require Windows to be running.
 
 All the HP servers I have are fully update able from linux... I don't have
 a M110, but I have several ML350's

Sorry, I was talking nonsense.
I have two servers (in different locations), both running CentOS-5.5.
One is an HP ProLiant,
but the one with the bad disk is actually a Dell PowerEdge T105.
The information that came with this explicitly warns
against using Linux to update the BIOS.
(The machine actually came with a curious mixture of Windows and Linux,
in the form of a partial RedHat Enterprise system.)
Also the Western Digital disk software
all seems to assume the the machine is running under Windows.
(Admittedly it didn't tell me anything more than smart under CentOS.)


-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


[CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread Timothy Murphy
I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
to a large (1.5TB) disk,
as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

Both disks are Western Digital,
and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
the original disk, and I'm not sure
from the documentation if True Image allows this.

Any opinions on the better of the two?

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread Les Mikesell
On 9/27/2010 4:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.

 Any opinions on the better of the two?

Don't know much about Acronis but clonezilla should do the job as long 
as it is able to read the used blocks on the source and you don't mind 
the copy having the same partition sizes initially (you can resize or 
add the unused space as a new mounted partition afterward).

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread John R Pierce
  On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.

 Any opinions on the better of the two?

is this ext3fs ?  use dump ... | restore ...


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread Les Mikesell
On 9/27/2010 4:45 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.

 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.

 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.

 Any opinions on the better of the two?

 is this ext3fs ?  use dump ... | restore ...

If it is bootable, then he has to go through some contortions to install 
grub (besides the extra effort of making the partitions and filesystems 
that the imaging toolsets do for you).

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:27:00PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:

 I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
 to a large (1.5TB) disk,
 as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
 
 Both disks are Western Digital,
 and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
 I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
 
 My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
 the original disk, and I'm not sure
 from the documentation if True Image allows this.
 
 Any opinions on the better of the two?
 

I would be inclined to suggest regular UNIX dump/restore.
The size change is covered in normal UNIX fashion and all
links, ownership, permissions and flags are preserved properly.

jerry


 -- 
 Timothy Murphy  
 e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
 tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
 
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Acronis True Image or Clonezilla

2010-09-27 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 04:52:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

 On 9/27/2010 4:45 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 09/27/10 2:27 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
  I want to clone a small (80GB) disk on my CentOS server
  to a large (1.5TB) disk,
  as smart has been giving me warnings of unreadable sectors.
 
  Both disks are Western Digital,
  and WD has a WD version of Acronis True Image.
  I'm not sure whether to use this or Clonezilla.
 
  My worry with Acronis is that I want to keep
  the original disk, and I'm not sure
  from the documentation if True Image allows this.
 
  Any opinions on the better of the two?
 
  is this ext3fs ?  use dump ... | restore ...
 
 If it is bootable, then he has to go through some contortions to install 
 grub (besides the extra effort of making the partitions and filesystems 
 that the imaging toolsets do for you).

Those are not difficult and allow for a proper use of the 
larger space.

jerry


 
 -- 
Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos