IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

User discussion and information resource forum for Image products.

IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby Sussexlad » Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:34 am

Hi

I have used IFL reliably for some time and have no hesitation in reloading an image if I get in a mess! I have been using 3.20 but downloaded 3.24 yesterday and it's not working as I expected.

I immediately knew there was something wrong, when instead of 50 or so minutes, producing an image of 35GB, it was all over in 16 minutes with a file around 10GB.
I'm no expert but have checked as much as I can and the only difference I can spot, is that when copying the MBR1 Partition 02 237974 MiB it normally says Linux LVM but with 3.24 it has XFS at the end instead of LVM.
I've checked the command after selecting all the various options and as I far as I can see they are identical.

It doesn't match the timings but it seems to show it's backing up 475,000MiB with a normal backup but with 3.24, only around 47,000 ! Oh and I've tried both 32 & 64 bit versions. This is a 64 bit PC and am at a loss.

Cheers
Sussexlad
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:32 am

Re: IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby TeraByte Support » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:17 pm


https://www.terabyteunlimited.com/upgradehist-image-for-linux.htm

3.22 added:

"Add --lvm (LVM) option to support data-only areas of self contained LVM
partitions."



"Sussexlad" wrote in message news:15986@public.image...

Hi

I have used IFL reliably for some time and have no hesitation in reloading
an image if I get in a mess! I have been using 3.20 but downloaded 3.24
yesterday and it's not working as I expected.

I immediately knew there was something wrong, when instead of 50 or so
minutes, producing an image of 35GB, it was all over in 16 minutes with a
file around 10GB.
I'm no expert but have checked as much as I can and the only difference I
can spot, is that when copying the MBR1 Partition 02 237974 MiB it normally
says Linux LVM but with 3.24 it has XFS at the end instead of LVM.
I've checked the command after selecting all the various options and as I
far as I can see they are identical.

It doesn't match the timings but it seems to show it's backing up 475,000MiB
with a normal backup but with 3.24, only around 47,000 ! Oh and I've tried
both 32 & 64 bit versions. This is a 64 bit PC and am at a loss.

Cheers

TeraByte Support
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby Sussexlad » Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:12 am

Thanks for the reply.

I open the 'Show Command' box and can add the --lvm as suggested but then what?

There's the option to save it but where and with what name. If I close the dialogue, the addition simply disappears !










Post by TeraByte Support » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:17 pm

https://www.terabyteunlimited.com/upgra ... -linux.htm

3.22 added:

"Add --lvm (LVM) option to support data-only areas of self contained LVM
partitions."
Sussexlad
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:32 am

Re: IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby Sussexlad » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:33 am

... can I also ask why this required adding when 3.20 imaged my Centos 7 installation just fine before? Thanks.
Sussexlad
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:32 am

Re: IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby TeraByte Support(PP) » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:13 am

The option allows backing up used space in the LVM volumes (where all logical volumes are contained only within the LVM itself) for supported file systems instead of backing up the entire LVM partition (RAW mode).

You don't need to add the --lvm option (it's enabled by default). However, if you did want to disable it and create the larger backup images you could run IFL from the command line so you could include --lvm:0 or you could add LVM=0 to the [Options] section of the ifl.ini file (e.g. when creating the IFL boot media).
Paul Purviance
TeraByte Support
TeraByte Support(PP)
 
Posts: 1348
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: IFL - Image much smaller than expected with 3.24

Postby Sussexlad » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:42 am

Ok, got it, thanks. Much quicker to do now ! :D
Sussexlad
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:32 am


Return to Image for DOS/Linux/Windows