partimage
Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: partimage
started by: TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 18 2007,18:09
Good evening!I miss an application like partimage, that could be perfect to use DSL as a recovery tool, as well as a desktop distro, that DSL already is.
At present I am joining together Parted Image Linux, as a recovery tool, with DSL, as a desktop distro, in my multiboot ISO. Just if I could have partimage as a part of DSL, may be I only should need DSL ...
While I made my backup or restore of a partition I could navigate by Firefox, for instance 
Before posting I have consulted the Search tool and I have not seen any post about partimage.
Thanks.
*JT.
Posted by WDef on Dec. 19 2007,01:40
I like partimage too and it's been requested before.I'll build a uci out of the static.binaries that I have and post to the repo. These just run on dsl but it's always handy to have an extension.
That way you can just load the extension when you need it.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 19 2007,20:16
WDef: Thank you. I would do the same you are going to do if I knew how. 
I have to learn a lot before I try to build an UCI file.
*JT.
Posted by WDef on Dec. 20 2007,00:02
Done. partimage.uci has been emailed.It's version 0.6.4. The last stable release is a bit more recent., but that doesn't seem to have a static.binary.
If there are problems let us know, since there is a later (but from the unstable branch) static.binary available.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 20 2007,18:10
Thanks a lot Wdef, I have downloaded it from the testing myDSL folder, I have booted DSL and in this precise moment I am making a compressed copy or image of an ext3 partition (an installed Ubuntu 7.10). It takes more time than Parted Image Linux. May be because I am using more system resources while the program is making the copy. But it is very comfortable to me not to be boring or idle when I want to make a system backup 
If it is able (or if it is not able) to restore the system from the backup I only will know after another session ...
It is wonderful!
*JT.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 20 2007,20:12
After my trial backing and then restoring my Ubuntu with DSL plus partimage.UCI, I have noticed nothing to complain, with the exception of the long time taken to make both: the backup and the restoration (about half an hour each), in an AMD 64 bits at 2200 MHz (a 3500+) with 2Gb of RAM shared with the graphic card (an Nvidia up to 360 Mb of RAM). This is not 'normal': With Parted Image it takes about 15 min the same backup (at the same level of packing: gziped) and about 3 min the restoration of the same partition, using partimage as well.Now I am writing with Firefox in the just restored Ubuntu, that is an evidence of:
-The operation has been OK
-The operation was a sort of simulation because nothing happened after all ...
Regards and thanks again.
*JT.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Dec. 20 2007,23:14
Make sure you aren't using PIO mode for your storage device (i.e. you have DMA enabled)
Posted by WDef on Dec. 21 2007,01:37
@TTK: Glad we have a happy customer!Tonight I compiled the current stable release with OpenSSL support, so I'll update the uci to that soonish.
EDIT: What is Parted Image?
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 21 2007,18:08
| Quote (WDef @ Dec. 20 2007,20:37) |
| EDIT: What is Parted Image? |
Sorry for my mistake: I wanted to say PARTED MAGIC LINUX, not Parted Image.
Their homepage is < http://partedmagic.com >
If you see their changelog, they are using the version of partimage 0.6.6.
< http://partedmagic.com/news.html >
By the way, GParted is also a nice application which as far as I remember is not still part of the DSL extensions. It could be a good idea to incorporate it.
Regards.
*JT.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 21 2007,18:21
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 20 2007,18:14) |
| Make sure you aren't using PIO mode for your storage device (i.e. you have DMA enabled) |
The mode that is using the disk where I have operated is UDMA 5 (ATA 100). Its interface is an IDE-ATA.
Anyway the trials where comparable in both cases, with Parted Magic Linux and with DSL enabled with partimage.UCI.
That is to say: I have my Ubuntu installed in an hda3 partition, and I have an hda5 fat32 partition in the same disk. I make the backup from hda3 to a gziped file in hda5 by means of partimage.
Then the only variable is the OS: Parted Magic vs DSL. Both are running toram. There is enough RAM (2 Gb-Graphical card usage).
The behaviour with Parted Magic was fine, but with DSL it runned like being in a trafic jam: stopping and starting; when stopping all the functions of the desktop were frozen, when starting the speed was apparently good.
A problem with the mode of the disk perhaps could give another profile. Are we in front of a hidden memory misuse? It could be a good idea to investigate what happen with this program, not for the program itself but for if it is showing another defect
Thanks a lot to this forum. It is plenty of people that give response to the questions in a proffessional way.
Regards.
*JT.
Posted by WDef on Dec. 21 2007,21:56
0.6.6 is the current stable partimage. I'm not sure why there would be such a performance difference. Maybe dynamic linking vs static. Maybe optimization? Dunno.Let's see what a shared lib updated version does.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 22 2007,15:32
| Quote (WDef @ Dec. 21 2007,16:56) |
| I'm not sure why there would be such a performance difference. |
I suspect that I had a partition error.
When I have time I will try again DSL+optional partimage.UCI and inform later.
To be continued ...
*JT.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 23 2007,07:43
I made mew trials, after solving a problem with another disk which gave me some errors when running Windows. But this was not the source of the observed differences:DSL+partimage backup still was at a speed of 150-120 Mb/sec, instead of the speed of Parted Magic which was about 4 times faster.
I made another trial with Insert Linux that has also partimage incorporated, and the speed of the backup was about 600-400 Mb/sec as well.
So there is something that is slowing down the speed in DSL+partimage ...
*JT.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 23 2007,07:52
I do not know if it is useful, but the usage of the memory informed by Insert during the operation was 99 %, and swap partition 5 %.*JT.
Posted by jpeters on Dec. 23 2007,08:29
| Quote (^thehatsrule^ @ Dec. 20 2007,18:14) |
| Make sure you aren't using PIO mode for your storage device (i.e. you have DMA enabled) |
From the wiki:
PIO stands for Programmed Input-Output. It is nowdays a slow and
inefficient data transfer mode. The data is transferred by the
processor, byte by byte. This requires processor time and therefore
causes a high and unwanted processor load. These issues are somewhat
solved with DMA PIO modes may be tweaked with hdparm.
Run 'showbootcodes' to check setup. Also, DMA can cause cause problems if there is a hardware issue. (to check, run 'nodma' bootcode.)
Posted by curaga on Dec. 23 2007,08:35
Are you sure dma was enabled in DSL? Is "dma" in your boot line?
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 23 2007,09:37
| Quote (curaga @ Dec. 23 2007,03:35) |
| Are you sure dma was enabled in DSL? Is "dma" in your boot line? |
Good point. Here are my bootcodes:
label Parted Magic 1.9
KERNEL PtMagic/bzImage
APPEND noapic initrd=PtMagic/initrd.gz root=/dev/ram0 squashfs=/isolinux/PtMagic/pmagic init=/linuxrc ramdisk_size=100000 skip
LABEL Insert 1.3.9b
KERNEL Insert/vmlinuz
APPEND ramdisk_size=100000 init=/etc/init lang=en apm=power-off vga=773 initrd=Insert/miniroot.lz nomce noapic dma BOOT_IMAGE=insert
label Damn Small Linux 4.2
KERNEL DSL/linux24
APPEND ramdisk_size=100000 init=/etc/init lang=es apm=power-off vga=791 initrd=DSL/minirt24.gz nomce noapic qemu quiet toram BOOT_IMAGE=knoppix frugal
I will try to make dma on in DSL and come back after new trial.
Thanks for the suggestion.
*JT.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 23 2007,10:39
I am back here!Switched dma on in the bootcodes without improvement.
I see that Insert is using kernel 2.6.18.6 and DSL is using kernel 2.4.31
Perhaps it could influence the result?
Regards.
*JT.
Posted by WDef on Dec. 28 2007,09:51
I don't know if he kernel version might have an effect on the throughput times for partimage, I imagine it's possible though.I think though it's more likely to be that partimage static.binary, which I guess was compiled to run on all sorts of hardware. (Disclaimer: I'm wildly guessing here). All optimization was probably disabled. Assuming partimage uses pthreads (I can check) that was probably disabled also.
Is your machine a dual processor machine by any chance? If so, losing threading could slow down the extension hugely, and might conceivably slow it down even if your pc is not multiprocessor.
Posted by TTK=Teobromina_Tool_Kit on Dec. 31 2007,19:23
| Quote (WDef @ Dec. 28 2007,04:51) |
| Is your machine a dual processor machine by any chance? If so, losing threading could slow down the extension hugely, and might conceivably slow it down even if your pc is not multiprocessor. |
Happy new year to WDef and all the DSL fans!
My machine is an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ at 2200 MHz with one core and one processor.
Thank you for your support. I think this issue could be useful to solve some other DSL efficiency problems, not just the Partimage case.
Regards.
*JT.