Clone only the data from disk to .img disk file?
0
Is there a program to run in the terminal and tell it to just copy the sectors with information in use to an .img file and ignore the sectors NOT assigned? I need something like that so I can later mount it and not have to use temporary space to unzip the image.
Note: Clonezilla is not what I'm looking for because I need additional space to decompress the copy and mount it.
mount hard-drive clone
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
add a comment |
0
Is there a program to run in the terminal and tell it to just copy the sectors with information in use to an .img file and ignore the sectors NOT assigned? I need something like that so I can later mount it and not have to use temporary space to unzip the image.
Note: Clonezilla is not what I'm looking for because I need additional space to decompress the copy and mount it.
mount hard-drive clone
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
1
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
1
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21
add a comment |
0
0
0
Is there a program to run in the terminal and tell it to just copy the sectors with information in use to an .img file and ignore the sectors NOT assigned? I need something like that so I can later mount it and not have to use temporary space to unzip the image.
Note: Clonezilla is not what I'm looking for because I need additional space to decompress the copy and mount it.
mount hard-drive clone
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
Is there a program to run in the terminal and tell it to just copy the sectors with information in use to an .img file and ignore the sectors NOT assigned? I need something like that so I can later mount it and not have to use temporary space to unzip the image.
Note: Clonezilla is not what I'm looking for because I need additional space to decompress the copy and mount it.
mount hard-drive clone
mount hard-drive clone
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
edited Jan 3 at 10:31
MarianoM
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
asked Jan 3 at 9:41
MarianoMMarianoM
6810
6810
1
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
1
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21
add a comment |
1
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
1
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21
1
1
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
1
1
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1106535%2fclone-only-the-data-from-disk-to-img-disk-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1106535%2fclone-only-the-data-from-disk-to-img-disk-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If there is, I suspect it would be slow to use. It would need to save all used inodes (skipping unused), then to recover files you'd read the directory & access inodes in use; but because they are no longer predictably stored (due to unsaved ones), the read program would have to scan for each (unless it had a new old-inode--new-inode converstion table reducing the space-savings somewhat). The result would be slower in operation (until restored to new disk media), or require second mount-img index file to be created before using (wasting time). Easy to create, but I'm not sure worth it
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 9:53
@guiverc Interesting explanation! Let me tell you that now at the last minute, an idea crossed my mind about this problem. It occurs to me that I could create an empty .img image, format it with fsck and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea, but I could use rsync to synchronize all the current data to the .img image (previously mounted). What do you think of this solution? I'm sure others will like it too because I've seen that later they want to mount their copies.
– MarianoM
Jan 3 at 10:00
1
I've not done what you propose, but it would void the mount-img-index/old-inode--new-inode requirement; the cost being longer to create the img, the result faster to use if mounted, and eventual restoration [if it ever occurs]. If used multiple-times, the extra time needed to create would pay dividends, so the end-use-case will dictate which approach better suits (somewhat low-media-costs versus often more expensive time)
– guiverc
Jan 3 at 10:14
askubuntu.com/questions/667291/… Have you tried something like this?
– Minty
Jan 3 at 13:21