Re: [PLUG] Image-based partial backup?

[Rich Freeman <r-plug@thefreemanclan.net>]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Keith C. Perry
<kperry@daotechnologies.com> wrote:

> How compressible is that 300Gb though?  I generally use lzo
> compression but if times isn't a factor you might be some surprisingly
> good results with gzip or bzip2.

Clonezilla supports compression.  I've actually found gzip to be the
best option, because clonezilla supports multi-threaded compression.
I believe the main difference between gzip and lzo is that lzo
decompresses faster, and that isn't a major consideration for a backup
solution.

My data should be moderately compressible.

>
> I don't think that facility is in Windows 7.  I wish it was because
> 2008 Server is almost as easy to move around as my Linux xfs volumes.

Well, I'm running a Win7 backup now to see how it works.  It has been
running for about 10 hours and is 33% complete.  That is WAY slower than
clonezilla.  It looks like it compresses data locally into zip files
before sending it over the network, which explains why it is so slow.
The thing is the zip files are only 200MB each, so it could easily just
buffer those in RAM assuming it needs to buffer them at all.  Really
lousy implementation, but it runs online so maybe I'll just tolerate
that or figure out some way to point that at a RAM disk or something.

I'd really prefer something FOSS though.  I just feel like I'd have more
options if something goes wrong.  Then again, for the Windows box there
is actually nothing critical data-wise on it in the first place which
isn't already backed up in other ways.  So, this is mostly about saving
me time re-installing everything if the disk crashes.

-- 
Rich
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug