clonezilla - restoring

[milomak]

i apologise if i have chosen the wrong forum

i have a clonezilla iso. will burn to usb. boot it.

what should i note to actually be able to make a working restore point?

[RU55EL]

Clonezilla is good software, but this is the Debian forums. You should look at the Clonezilla website.

https://clonezilla.org/clonezilla-usage ... -usage.php

[sunrat]

what should i note to actually be able to make a working restore point?

It doesn't make restore points, it makes clone images of disks or partitions. There are numerous guides on the interwebz and the one RU55EL posted is good.
Personally I've been using fsarchiver instead lately. Easier to use, faster, but has more limitations such as minimal (or no?) ntfs support.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

For Me, dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility, it's even possible to backup a running system.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility

Nah, rsync is better because you can use it to change filesystems and partitions: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rs ... tem_backup ← that can also be used on a running system.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility

Nah, rsync is better because you can use it to change filesystems and partitions: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rs ... tem_backup ← that can also be used on a running system.

... excluding compression
rsync --compress just compresses the data during transfer ....

[Bulkley]

I use Clonezilla for monthly backups or when I plan on doing something risky. I have some spare drives (taken from old machines) and do local disk to local disk clones and I test them to make sure they work. There have been occasions when I have had to reverse the process and re-clone my daily driver. This is not my only backup but it is the most thorough. Most users would find this too cumbersome but I like it.

[cds60601]

dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility

Nah, rsync is better because you can use it to change filesystems and partitions: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rs ... tem_backup ← that can also be used on a running system.

I like this idea! But, can this create an archive file such as a tarball opposed to an identical system on another drive?

[p.H]

For Me, dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility, it's even possible to backup a running system.

Using dd to make an image of a disk or partition in use may result in an inconsistent image.
How do you avoid it ? Or do you use dd another way ?

[Head_on_a_Stick]

can this create an archive file such as a tarball opposed to an identical system on another drive?

Well you could tar up the system after using rsync but you would have to untar it before updating the backup, which is a faff. Why do you want an archive file?

[p.H]

Because it can be compressed, I guess.

[cds60601]

can this create an archive file such as a tarball opposed to an identical system on another drive?

Well you could tar up the system after using rsync but you would have to untar it before updating the backup, which is a faff. Why do you want an archive file?

To be honest, to gain the same outcome as one might have after imaging the system with clonezilla as I do now. I simply have a directory on a drive that for now, holds my cloned images.
The way I understand for rsync, I would be required to have a dedicated drive just for a backup only. I suppose in my scenario, rsync wouldn't be a viable solution. I guess the idea of a backup f the system while being live captured me and started the whole, what if question.

Thus ti difference between a cloned images and a backup I guess..

[Head_on_a_Stick]

The way I understand for rsync, I would be required to have a dedicated drive just for a backup only.

Not at all, you can rsync to a directory, in fact that's the only way to use it. If you want to rsync the backup to a different drive then you have to mount the drive under a directory and point rsync to that.

Another big advantage of rsync is that it only copies the differences between old and new so if you back up every week then rsync will be *much* quicker than CloneZilla, dd, tar or whatever (unless CloneZilla also offers incremental backups, I've never used it so I don't know how it works).

[cds60601]

The way I understand for rsync, I would be required to have a dedicated drive just for a backup only.

Not at all, you can rsync to a directory, in fact that's the only way to use it. If you want to rsync the backup to a different drive then you have to mount the drive under a directory and point rsync to that.

Another big advantage of rsync is that it only copies the differences between old and new so if you back up every week then rsync will be *much* quicker than CloneZilla, dd, tar or whatever (unless CloneZilla also offers incremental backups, I've never used it so I don't know how it works).

HA! You are absolutely right! For S&G, I created a directory on my external drive, ran the command that is referenced in the wiki you posted. Didn't take long at all, faster than clonezilla for certain.
This could be my new replacement for how I'm dong nightly backups as it does the complete system opposed to what I'm doing now. Many times I when to a nightly tarball only to find that I intentionally did not include directories I should have for those once in a great while file changes that live outside of my normal locations.

This is perfect!

[Head_on_a_Stick]

Didn't take long at all, faster than clonezilla for certain.

The first run of rsync will take a while because it has to copy the entire system but subsequent runs are much quicker because only the differences between old & new are copied.

[mm3100]

It is possible to easily create snapshots with rsync. There is some good material for ideas about it here
http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

For Me, dd + gzip does the job - maximum flexibility, it's even possible to backup a running system.

Using dd to make an image of a disk or partition in use may result in an inconsistent image.
How do you avoid it ? Or do you use dd another way ?

I've mislooked Your post, anyway: what do You mean by "(...) may result in an inconsistent image"?
Do You mean that taking a snapshot of a running system requires to f.e. remount the root File System as read-only? Or to stop all the services / programs?

[pcalvert]

It is possible to easily create snapshots with rsync. There is some good material for ideas about it here
http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/

There is no longer any need for that. The functionality he describes is provided by rsnapshot:

https://packages.debian.org/stable/rsnapshot

Phil

[pcalvert]

Consider also the value of using Btrfs along with snapper. If I were using Debian Sid (or testing), I would definitely be using that combination.

Phil

[p.H]

what do You mean by "(...) may result in an inconsistent image"?

I'll take an example. While dd is running and has copied the first half of the device, the system writes new data in the first half (already copied by dd) and in the second half (not yet copied by dd). The resulting image will contain the old data in the first half and the new data in the second half, making it inconsistent. This is like screen tearing when the framebuffer reads and writes are not synchronized.

Do You mean that taking a snapshot of a running system requires to f.e. remount the root File System as read-only? Or to stop all the services / programs?

Stopping all services is not enough to prevent any write, and obviously you cannot stop all programs as some programs are needed to take the image. E.g. the bash shell writes each command in the history log. Remounting all filesystems (not only /) on the source device read-only prevent many services and programs from running properly, so I can hardly call this a "running system".