Re: What would I do without partimage?
nospam-51121@carolina.rr.com (William Ballard) writes:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:48:07AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> > For ntfs partitions, i prefer the more mature ntfs support of the
> > ntfsprogs and the added benefit of loop mounting an NTFS image file.
>
> You can't mount an image that has been saved with --save-image.
>
Yes, if you use the --save-image parameter. But if you restore such an
image to a file instead to a partition, you can use loop mount that file.
> I tried ntfsclone and it works about as fast as partimage, and it's definitely less
> cumbersome that partimage; however the resulting gzipped image file from a 20GB
> partition with 2GB of actual data was about 60MB larger: 840mb versus 780mb. The
> partimage image was also gzipped.
>
But can you restore a partimage image to a file and loop mount the result?
> I'm also going to file a bug against ntfsprogs that ntfsclone should be packaged
> separately from the rest of ntfsprogs.
>
I love package fragmentation... :-/
> ntfsclone is actually useful; the rest of those
> programs are either unnecessary or flat dangerous. The only thing they have in common
> is they involve NTFS.
>
ntfsresize and ntfsfix are some other nice components of the ntfsprogs
package. I've benefited from both various times.
> The fact that ntfsclone is packaged with a tool called "fixntfs" or somethign who's man
> page says "always run this after running any of the other utilities in this package
> before booting or your NTFS partition will be completely destroyed" makes me feel
> squeamish about ntfsclone,
>
:-))))))
Don't worry. The ntfsprogs should be safer than the ntfs support of partimage.
> although as I said it's a different animal and people report
> it as stable.
>
ntfsfix helped me quite a few times to fix a ntfs partition which the
native WinXP chkdsk couldn't repair anymore... ;-)
Reply to: