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.Make sure you aren't using PIO mode for your storage device (i.e. you have DMA enabled)@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?
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.
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.
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.
