Ok, it's been a long time since I've been on the forums, but that's mainly because my system has been running as smooth as could be for the last year or so.
My problem is this: I have a fully configured XBMCLive setup running on a self-built Ion-platform HTPC. XBMC is booting from an internal 80Gb 2,5" HD, and the media is on a NAS. I've spent quite a few hours configuring everything (Harmony remote keymap, automatic download sorting, boblight, boot-scripts,...) and since I haven't written anything down, I'm starting to fear that whenever the HD fails, I'm never going to get the setup in it's current form again.
That's why I'm looking for a way to clone the entire disk to another one (Including partitions, boot flags,....) and in that way having a HD handy that I can just swap if the other one dies, and have the exact same system running in 5 minutes.
Can anyone point me in the right direction to accomplish this. (I have an OSX, Windows 7 and Ubuntu machine)
Thanks a lot,
Ken
Plug 2nd drive in:
Run this (be careful):
sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb
Done, turn off and disconnect
Sam.Nazarko Wrote:Plug 2nd drive in:
Run this (be careful):
sudo dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb
Done, turn off and disconnect
Note: sda and sdb will vary depending on your system. Run sudo fdisk -l to list disks and partitions.
No reason to overwrite a whole disk when he doesn't need to use the backup immediately, or even doing a full 80GB copy when he probably hasn't filled up the disk completely.
Using something like
Clonezilla, you can backup only the used blocks on the drive directly to an image file on your NAS, and the same software can be used to restore it if the day comes when you need to.
If Clonezilla doesn't work for you,
Partclone might also be useful.
Yes, use clonezilla or "get" a copy of acronis for a commercial more user friendly alternative.
The dd method would do the same, You can also use it to write to an image file and then gzip/bzip it.
IMPORTANT: do not use the dd method on a mounted filesystem. Boot from a live medium first.
Quote:The dd method would do the same,
I understand that.
What you need to consider is the need of a person that ask how to clone instead of putting "clone a linux system" into the big google.
Clonzilla is probbaly too complicated in this scenario and that is why I mention acronis.
BTW google says: clonzilla
Hi, thanks for the fast replies everyone. Both the dd and clonezilla solutions seem to be exactly what I needed.
vikjon0 Wrote:I understand that.
What you need to consider is the need of a person that ask how to clone instead of putting "clone a linux system" into the big google.
Clonzilla is probbaly too complicated in this scenario and that is why I mention acronis.
I have used both Clonezilla and Acronis TrueImage. How you can find that Clonezilla is "too complicated" is beyond me. If you can and do read the menu prompts, there is no knowledge whatsoever required to use Clonezilla
The only differences I can see between the two:
- Acronis has a polished GUI, Clonezilla DOS-era menues
- Acronis is based on an older Linux kernel, may or may not work for you
- some versions of Acronis do not support 256 byte INodes (fatal for EXT3/4)
- Acronis costs money
Quote:- Acronis has a polished GUI, Clonezilla DOS-era menues
This is is the difference, non experienced people tend to prefer non dos era menues.
If you read again you see that I do not have issues with clonzilla.
vikjon0 Wrote:This is is the difference, non experienced people tend to prefer non dos era menues.
If you read again you see that I do not have issues with clonzilla.
A polished GUI or a simple menu do not indicate how "complicated" a software is. I find Acronis, which may or may not work on EXT3, depending on the version you use - and which may or may not work on recent hardware at all, due to the generally older kernels, much more complicated due to the guesswork involved. For that reason, I found your advice (pro Acronis) not to be the best possible.
recluce Wrote:- Acronis has a polished GUI, Clonezilla DOS-era menues
<offtopic>
I dispute this comment, just because Clonezilla use a CLI-driven menu system does not mean it is:
a) "DOS-era" - plenty of installers and programs still use text-driven interfaces even now
b) unpolished just because it uses CLI-driven menus - polished in terms of software design means thought-out and planned enough to get the job done as efficiently as possible i.e. vim.
</offtopic>
Back on topic, I would either recommend Clonezilla or G4U depending on your level of experience with linux, and the other resources you have available. If you wish to buy a second hard drive, then Clonezilla is good. If you would like an image file backed up to a remote file server, Clonezilla can do Samba shares, G4U can do FTP.