2.93: Bug in IFL if restored to Linux RAID

User discussion and information resource forum for Image products.
Post Reply
schittli
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:21 pm

2.93: Bug in IFL if restored to Linux RAID

Post by schittli »

Good evening

We've found a bug - or at least it behaves annoying:

- Linux RAID1
- sda and sdb have 2 partitions:
Partition 1: ext4, part of /dev/md0
Partition 2: ext4, part of /dev/md1

1. We backup the linux sda disk
2. We try to restore this backup:
source: only Partition 1
destination: /dev/md0
» IFL always says, that /dev/md0 is "too small", but it's the same Data as we've backed up in step 1, so there is enough place. In fact, there is plenty of free space.

It would be great if IFL will support to restore to smaller partitions like other Tools do; using the "Compact" command before is annoing because this command would be useful on restore and not on backup.

btw.: "Compact" does not work, on the described setting above with two ext4 partitions: clicking "Compact" just does ... nothing. No message, no process is started and therefore the "Information" keeps the same.

Kind regards,
Thomas
mjnelson99
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24 am

Re: 2.93: Bug in IFL if restored to Linux RAID

Post by mjnelson99 »

I had a similar problem with IFL a year or so ago.

I was able to reduce the size of the 100 mb partition by about 8 mb and
then could restore.

In the future, I made sure there was a few MB unused at the end of the
partition. Haven't needed to use it since then, though.
Mary

On 2/16/2015 4:47 PM, schittli wrote:
> Good evening
>
> We've found a bug - or at least it behaves annoying:
>
> - Linux RAID1
> - sda and sdb have 2 partitions:
> Partition 1: ext4, part of /dev/md0
> Partition 2: ext4, part of /dev/md1
>
> 1. We backup the linux sda disk
> 2. We try to restore this backup:
> source: only Partition 1
> destination: /dev/md0
> ? IFL always says, that /dev/md0 is "too small", but it's the same Data as we've backed up in step 1, so there is enough place. In fact, there is plenty of free space.
>
> It would be great if IFL will support to restore to smaller partitions like other Tools do; using the "Compact" command before is annoing because this command would be useful on restore and not on backup.
>
> btw.: "Compact" does not work, on the described setting above with two ext4 partitions: clicking "Compact" just does ... nothing. No message, no process is started and therefore the "Information" keeps the same.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
>
TeraByte Support
Posts: 3629
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: 2.93: Bug in IFL if restored to Linux RAID

Post by TeraByte Support »

compacting wouldn't do much for linux file systems since meta data is spread
out.

are you taking something that is not partitioned then trying to restore as
partitioned or you are restoring with different alignment (enable 1M
alignment or restore via command line with no @ on the --d option or over
the top of existing one) .. what is the required restore size via properties
and what is the size of the free block.

(you can use tbiview to copy the files if needed).



"schittli" wrote in message news:9361@public.image...

Good evening

We've found a bug - or at least it behaves annoying:

- Linux RAID1
- sda and sdb have 2 partitions:
Partition 1: ext4, part of /dev/md0
Partition 2: ext4, part of /dev/md1

1. We backup the linux sda disk
2. We try to restore this backup:
source: only Partition 1
destination: /dev/md0
? IFL always says, that /dev/md0 is "too small", but it's the same Data as
we've backed up in step 1, so there is enough place. In fact, there is
plenty of free space.

It would be great if IFL will support to restore to smaller partitions like
other Tools do; using the "Compact" command before is annoing because this
command would be useful on restore and not on backup.

btw.: "Compact" does not work, on the described setting above with two ext4
partitions: clicking "Compact" just does ... nothing. No message, no process
is started and therefore the "Information" keeps the same.

Kind regards,
Thomas

Post Reply