Re: [Clonezilla-live] Partclone vs Partimage
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#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net 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 -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
Re: [Clonezilla-live] Partclone vs Partimage
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 -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
Re: [Clonezilla-live] Partclone vs Partimage
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#174; 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
Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net
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
--
Download Intel#174; 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
Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
Re: [Clonezilla-live] Using CZ with Logocal Volumes
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: r...@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. r...@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
Re: [Clonezilla-live] Using CZ with Logocal Volumes
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 -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
